HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170628 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 17-15
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
La Honda Elementary School
450 Sears Ranch Rd.
La Honda, CA 94020
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM*
Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section
54956.8)
Property: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 562-08-003
Agency Negotiator: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager
Negotiating Party: Val Lopez, Amah Mutsun Land Trust
Under Negotiation: Conservation Easement
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section
54956.8)
Property: San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 056-410-010, 020 & 120, 056-420-
020, 056-430-020 & 030, 056-440-020 & 030
Agency Negotiator: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager
Negotiating Party: Zion Half Moon Land Limited
Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms and Conditions
ADJOURNMENT
7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The Board President will invite public comment on items not on the agenda. Each speaker will
ordinarily be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow
action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please
complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance
during this section.
Meeting 17-15
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members,
the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent
Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
1. Approve May 24, 2017, June 6, 2017, and June 14, 2017 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Agreement with Oregon State University to Test Revegetation Sites for Soil Diseases (R-17-
85)
Staff Contact: Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Management Specialist
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to approve an agreement with Oregon State University for an
amount not-to-exceed $90,000 to test revegetation sites in District preserves for soil diseases
and develop any recommended remedial actions.
2. Determine that the recommended action is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
4. Agreement to Manage Slender False Brome on Private Properties near District Preserves (R-
17-78)
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, IPM Coordinator
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to:
1. Approve a cooperative agreement with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
for a total of $100,000 in Fiscal Year 2017-18 to treat slender false brome on private properties
near District preserves.
2. Exercise the option to extend the agreement for a second and third year if the program is
successful for a total not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 over the three-year term.
5. Authorization to Purchase Capital Equipment for Fiscal Year 2017-18 (R-17-83)
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 State Department of
General Services and associated contract dealers for five (5) patrol vehicles and nine (9)
maintenance vehicles, for a total cost not-to-exceed $740,000.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of
General Services and associated contract dealers for one (1) aerial lift truck, one (1) tracked
chipper, and one (1) mini-excavator, for a total cost not-to-exceed $330,000.
6. Contract amendment with H.T. Harvey & Associates for Bat Relocation and Habitat
Replacement at the former Alma College site at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve
(R-17-77)
Staff Contact: Bryan Apple, Planner II
General Manager’s Recommendation: Amend a contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates for the
Alma College Bat Relocation and Habitat Replacement Project in an amount of $71,432, and
allocate a separate contingency of $9,473, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $104,207.
7. Agreement with City of Mountain View to Provide District Radio Dispatch Services (R-17-
84)
Staff Contact: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land & Facilities Services
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to execute a one-year
agreement with the City of Mountain View to provide the District 24-hour radio dispatch service,
with the option to extend the agreement for one additional year, in an amount not-to-exceed
$197,800 in Fiscal Year 2017–18 and an amount not-to-exceed $217,810 for Fiscal Year 2018–19.
8. Structure Demolition at 1150 Sears Ranch Road in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
(R-17-74)
Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the demolition of an unoccupied residence
structure that lacks a foundation and has other structural issues and an associated shed located at
1150 Sears Ranch Road in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve.
9. Award of Contract to GradeTech Inc., for construction of the Sears Ranch Road Parking
Area and Driveway Improvements, and site cleanup work at La Honda Creek Open Space
Preserve for a Base Amount Not-to-Exceed $678,888 and a Separate 15% Contingency of
$101,833. (R-17-60)
Staff Contact: Matt Brunnings, Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with GradeTech Inc., of San Ramon,
California for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $678,888.
2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $101,833 to be reserved for
unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $780,721.
10. Contract authorization with Santa Clara County FireSafe Council for removal of eucalyptus
trees in Los Trancos Open Space Preserve (R-17-73)
Staff Contact: Craig Beckman, Area Manager, Land and Facilities
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with
Santa Clara County FireSafe Council for the removal of eucalyptus trees in Los Trancos Open
Space Preserve for fire safety, in an amount not to exceed $276,000, for a period from the date of
execution through November 30, 2020 with options to extend the length of the contract for an
additional two years.
11. Contract Amendment with MKThink for Basic Programming for the Administrative Office
Project (R-17-54)
Staff Contact: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract
amendment with MKThink to complete basic programming services for the Administrative Office
Project in an amount of $48,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $117,000.
12. Award of Contract with PGA Design, Inc., to provide design and engineering services for the
Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project at Bear Creek Redwoods Open
Space Preserve (R-17-86)
Staff Contact: Lisa Bankosh, Planner III
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with PGA Design, Inc., to provide
design and engineering services, complete construction plans, and provide permitting support
for the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project at Bear Creek Redwoods Open
Space Preserve for a not-to-exceed amount of $472,008.
2. Authorize a separate contract allowance of $47,200 specifically for additional permitting,
design, and public meeting preparation and attendance related to the Santa Clara County
Historical Heritage Commission permitting process that are beyond the current scope of work
to avoid potential implementation delays.
3. Authorize a 15% contingency of $70,800 to cover potential unforeseen design requirements.
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.
13. Memorandum of Understanding with Santa Clara Valley Water District for riparian invasive
species removal in Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-17-79)
Staff Contact: Melanie Askay, Grants Specialist, Administrative Services
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
Santa Clara Valley Water District to receive $200,000 per year for up to five years, to
implement invasive species removal in Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve; authorize
the General Manager to approve subsequent Task Orders resulting from the MOU.
2. Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Budget Amendment, adding $200,000 to the Bear
Creek Redwoods Invasive Weed Treatment budget (MAA21-007).
3. Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with Ecological Concerns of Santa Cruz,
CA, adding $200,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $573,483, to perform work
associated with the MOU. The contract amendment would be funded through funds secured
under the MOU.
14. Construction of Agricultural Workforce Housing in the Former Driscoll Ranch Area of La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-17-75)
Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Approve construction of agricultural workforce housing at either 900 Sears Ranch Road or 1150
Sears Ranch Road in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve to serve the conservation grazing
program.
2. Adopt a resolution (see Attachment 1) authorizing the General Manger to enter into a
partnership agreement with San Mateo County for a forgivable fifteen-year, no-interest
Farmworker Housing Pilot Program Phase III loan for $150,000 and permanently designate the
residence as agricultural workforce housing.
3. Authorize the General Manager to amend the lease with AGCO Hay LLC, the onsite
conservation-grazing tenant, to formalize the requirements of the Farmworker Housing Pilot
Program Phase III between the District and the grazing tenant.
15. Amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to include One
Proposed New Trail Loop and New Trail Names for the Preserve (R-17-76)
Staff Contact: Lisa Bankosh, Planner III
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Approve an amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to add a one-
mile trail loop;
2. Approve the following trail names: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main ranch road in lower
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve; “Folger Ranch Loop Trail” for a new loop trail off the
main ranch road; “Coho Vista Trail” for the existing trail to the vista point in upper La Honda
Creek; and “Cielo Trail” for an existing trail leading to the Redwood Cabin area.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or
announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board
questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or
direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to
staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board.
Committee Reports
Staff Reports
Director Reports
ADJOURNMENT
*Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed
to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s
Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that
the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and
available for review on June 23, 2017, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos
California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
May 24, 2017
Board Meeting 17-12
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
President Hassett called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle,
and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Cecily Harris
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner,
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/ Administrative Services Director
Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer
Woodworth, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Real Property
Manager Mike Williams, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Land & Facilities
Manager Brian Malone
1. Review of the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area Service Plan and Commitments
(R-17-66)
General Manager Steve Abbors provided introductory comments and explained a future Board
meeting will be held on the San Mateo Coast to discuss outreach plans and programs for the San
Mateo Coastal Area.
Director Harris arrived at 5:02 p.m.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz summarized the history of the Coastal Service Plan
development, including voter and Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) approval of the
annexation and the Coastal Service Plan Mission Statement. Ms. Ruiz described differences in
governance and agreements for the Coastal Annexation Area (CAA), such as prohibition of
Meeting 17-12 Page 2
eminent domain and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the San Mateo County Farm
Bureau, and various other LAFCo conditions of approval.
Real Property Manager Mike Williams discussed the District’s land acquisitions to date and its
work with Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) and other partners to preserve open space and
agricultural lands on the San Mateo Coast, including grant and partner funding of acquisitions.
Mr. Williams reviewed the guiding principles for the CAA related to services and funding and
outlined several Measure AA portfolios that increased funding CAA projects.
Land & Facilities Manager Brian Malone discussed the District’s efforts to preserve and foster
agricultural operations on the coast, which include leasing District land and minimizing conflicts
between agricultural and non-agricultural uses. These efforts include numerous grazing and row
crop operations on District land, hiring a rangeland ecologist to help manage the grazing plans,
and building infrastructure to minimize impacts of the public on agricultural operations.
Additionally, the San Mateo County Farm Bureau MOU requires the District to consult with the
Farm Bureau when considering new purchases, grazing plans, agricultural management plans, or
new facilities, ensuring that policies affecting coastal agricultural are followed. Mr. Malone
outlined the District’s guiding principles related to forestry and partnerships in the CAA.
Planning Manager Jane Mark summarized the District’s efforts related to the guiding principles
for representation and planning & development and outlined the low-intensity public recreation
opportunities and open space planning, such as the Vision Plan, Priority Conservation Areas, and
La Honda Master Plan. Finally, the land use guiding principles help ensure existing San Mateo
County land use and zoning designations are retained for District activities and compliance with
County land use policies and permitting requirements.
Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the possible effects of drought on agricultural operations.
Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington explained the District has adjudicated rights on the
San Gregorio Creek and the drought naturally limited the amount of grazing possible due to the
lowered amount of feed available.
Mr. Williams provided additional information for potential well installation and irrigation system
for the Pilarcitos watershed area.
Director Riffle inquired regarding the balance between preserving riparian corridors and fish
habits and providing water for row crops.
Mr. Lenington explained District staff and its consultants are currently studying this issue to help
determine the right balance for these possibly conflicting priorities.
Director Siemens inquired regarding District regulations related to greenhouses.
Ms. Ruiz responded any policy updates related to greenhouses could be included in a future
update to the Basic Policy.
Director Hanko inquired if the District has any restrictions on real estate developers purchasing
agricultural lands.
Meeting 17-12 Page 3
Mr. Williams explained when the District sells agricultural lands it typically maintains an
agricultural easement and may make an allowance for a home on the property for the owner and
nearby farm labor housing when necessary.
Director Harris inquired whether the Coastal Plan prevent us from managing lands that were not
purchased recently.
Mr. Williams explained the Coastal Plan does not limit this and land management opportunities
have been discussed in the past.
Director Harris requested additional information related to campgrounds on District lands.
Mr. Williams explained that while the District cannot have camping areas on its lands in the
CAA, it does not prevent the District from working with partners to help facilities campgrounds
on their properties, such as San Mateo County and POST hikers’ huts.
Ms. Mark introduced the case study related to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (OSP),
including land acquisition, grazing and land management, natural resource protection, preserve
master plan, and public recreation.
Mr. Lennington summarized contamination investigations for La Honda Creek OSP and
additional natural resource management, conservation grazing and land management, and
invasive species management. Pond and fisheries management has helped preserve and protect
habitats for protected species, including California red-legged frogs, San Francisco garter snake,
steelhead trout, and coho salmon. Additionally, staff has helped remove invasive species, such as
purple star thistle, and dilapidated structures.
Ms. Mark discussed the La Honda Creek OSP Master Plan to help guide public access through
long-term planning. The District also engages in consultations and outreach to the CAA through
public meetings and consultations with the Farm Bureau. When La Honda Creek OSP opens in
2017, the District continues to promote low-intensity public uses through improved ranch roads,
planned trails, and staging areas.
Ms. Ruiz provided a status summary of the CAA Service Plan to date and outlined recommended
fiscal year 2017-18 Action Plan priorities in the CAA, including potential land acquisitions,
natural resource protection and restoration, and public access and education actions.
Walter Moore, President of POST, provided an overview of the Farmland Futures Initiative
along the San Mateo County Coast to increase protected open space and agricultural lands in the
area.
Ben Wright Senior Conservation Project Manager with POST provided an example case study
for the Muzzi San Gregorio Ranch as part of the Farmland Futures Initiative. Mr. Wright
outlined the previous uses for the Muzzi Ranch and POST’s work to secure a tenant for the
property, who would be interested in eventually purchasing the property, subject to an
agricultural conservation easement. POST is currently leasing the property to a tenant and has
begun drafting the agricultural conservation easement and purchase option, which the tenant will
have three years to exercise.
Meeting 17-12 Page 4
Public comment opened at 6:43 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 6:43 p.m.
Director Riffle inquired regarding a future farm labor housing policy.
Mr. Malone reported the Board recently adopted a housing policy, and staff is currently working
on a farm labor housing policy.
Director Kishimoto requested additional information regarding the fees the District pays to San
Mateo County for fire protection and La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District.
Mr. Williams reported staff is currently discussing potential renegotiation of the San Mateo
County fire protection agreement, and the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District
agreement does not expire for several years.
Director Riffle commended District staff’s work on the presentation and his interest in the
upcoming Coastal Communication Outreach Plan.
President Hassett thanked District staff and POST staff for their efforts on the presentation and
especially for their work in the CAA.
No Board action required.
President Hassett adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 6:55 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
President Hassett called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto,
Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner,
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/
Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant
to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Natural Resources Manager
Kirk Lenington, Information Systems and Technology Manager Garrett
Dunwoody, Land & Facilities Manager Brian Malone, Visitor Services
Manager Michael Newburn, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Engineering &
Meeting 17-12 Page 5
Construction Manager Jay Lin, Human Resources Supervisor Candice
Basnight
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Yvonne Tryce spoke in favor of having a nature center at the Hawthorn property and inquired if
there were any updates regarding the property.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda.
VOTE: 7-0-0
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
• Introduction of staff
o Dave Jaeckel, Management Analyst II
o Alysha Carabetta, District Ranger
o Zuha Lambert, Volunteer Program Lead
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:12 p.m.
No speakers.
Public comment closed at 7:12 p.m.
Motion: Director Harris moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item 3.
VOTE: 7-0-0
1. Approve May 10, 2017 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Proposed purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (Conley) Property as an
addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, located on Shingle Mill Road in
unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 085-170-020, 085-
170-290, and 085-170-310) (R-17-29)
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (Conley)
property for $500,000 with a corresponding authorization for a Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget
increase of the same amount.
Meeting 17-12 Page 6
3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Peninsula Open Space Trust (Conley)
property, as set out in the staff report.
4. Withhold dedication of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (Conley) property as public open
space at this time.
Based on Director Riffle’s employment with Peninsula Open Space Trust, Director Riffle
recused himself for Item 3 and left the room at 7:13 p.m.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to approve Item 3.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Riffle recused)
Director Riffle returned to the dais at 7:14 p.m.
4. Proposed Purchase of the HR2LG, LLC (Kahn) property as an addition to Sierra
Azul Open Space Preserve located off Hicks Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 575-11-008) (R-17-59)
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Kahn property at a cost of $550,000, with
corresponding authorization for a Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget increase of the same amount.
3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property, as set out in the staff report.
4. Withhold dedication of the Kahn property as public open space.
BOARD BUSINESS
5. Consideration of the Controller’s Report on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2017-18
Budget (R-17-69)
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 FY2017-18 is affordable and sustainable. Mr. Foster provided his FY2017-18 cash
projection, 30-year cash flow projection, and projected Measure AA tax rate for the life of the
bonds. Mr. Foster stated the District will likely issue a second tranche of Measure AA bonds in
FY2017-18. Finally, Mr. Foster provided comments on inflation affecting the District’s ability to
complete all Measure AA projects. Mr. Foster explained inflation often correlates to assessed
valuation growth meaning the District will have increased revenue, and the District may pursue
grant funding and has additional General Fund resources that may be used to supplement
Measure AA funds.
President Hassett inquired regarding the decline of rental revenue.
Mr. Malone explained some housing has been removed from the housing list, and additional
revenue was lost due to cell tower lease expiration.
Public comment opened at 7:34 p.m.
Meeting 17-12 Page 7
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 7:34 p.m.
Director Kishimoto thanked Mr. Foster for his response to her concerns regarding inflation.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the
Controller’s report on the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget.
VOTE: 7-0-0
6. Proposed Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget & Action Plan Initial Review and Public
Hearing (R-17-72)
Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak provided an overview
of the budget for the District’s revenues, operating expenditures, capital expenditures, land and
associated costs, and debt service.
Mr. Foster described the expenditure trends for the previous and upcoming budget years and
projected revenue for FY2017-18, including property taxes and Measure AA funds.
Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the proposed FY2017-18 expenses by category, compared the FY2017-18
budget to the FY2016-17 budget, and described key factors that led to budget increases or
decreases. Mr. Jaskulak summarized the six major District programs and associated subprograms
in the District’s Action Plan and Capital Improvement Plan.
Director Hanko requested clarification regarding the location of the eucalyptus trees in Los
Trancos OSP.
Mr. Malone described the location of the eucalyptus trees to be removed.
Director Hanko requested additional information regarding potential annexation within the
District’s Sphere of Influence.
Mr. Abbors provided an update on the project and explained staff will come to the Board with
additional information at a future meeting.
Public hearing opened at 8:37 p.m.
City of Saratoga Councilmember Howard Miller spoke in favor of the Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail
and thanked the Board for their support.
Public hearing closed at 8:41 p.m.
Director Siemens requested additional information regarding the Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower
Second Assessment and expressed concern that public funds would be used for a project that
does not serve the District’s mission.
Meeting 17-12 Page 8
Ms. Ruiz explained that when the Board approved retaining the Tower, a second assessment
would be required to determine what long-term repairs would be required. The proposed
assessment will use the first assessment as a basis.
Director Riffle stated his belief that the Board’s previous decision to keep the Tower led to the
continued need for maintenance.
President Hassett stated his belief that historical listing of the structure does not require ongoing
repairs to the structure.
General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner explained various other regulatory issues have arisen related
to the structure, including water leakage, vector issues inside the building, etc.
Mr. Abbors spoke in favor of the District completing the assessment and receiving donations to
implement repairs as necessary.
Ms. Ruiz provided an explanation of the costs that contribute to the proposed cost of the
assessment.
Director Siemens stated his concerns regarding the cost of the assessment and suggested District
staff could complete the assessment.
Ms. Ruiz reported the proposed amount is lower than originally estimated, and the contract will
require Board approval if it is over $50,000. Additionally, staff will bring the results of the
assessment to the Board.
Director Siemens expressed concerns regarding the proposed budget for farm labor housing
stating the cost seemed much higher than it would be than if a District tenant built the housing.
Director Harris inquired if the amount of funding proposed for the endangered species
programmatic permitting was correct.
Mr. Lenington explained this is only a portion of the project is included in FY2017-18, which the
proposed budget covers.
Director Harris expressed her concerns regarding the funding for the Cooley Landing Business
and Operating Plan.
Director Harris spoke in favor of outreach to the Bay side of San Mateo County.
President Hassett requested additional information regarding the lease for the Christmas Tree
Farm.
Mr. Malone provided information on the current lease and reported any lease renewal would be
brought to the Board for approval.
No Board action required.
Meeting 17-12 Page 9
7. Delegation of Authority to the General Manager to review and discretionarily
approve technical designs, plans and specifications for construction and engineering
projects (R-17-43)
General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner explained the proposed delegation would formalize the
existing process of staff reviewing and approving project design documents for projects already
approved by the Board through the Budget & Action Plan.
Ms. Ruiz provided an overview of the proposed project review and approval process for both
large, complex projects and/or smaller projects with new policy implications. A streamlined
process would be implemented for small to medium scale projects that implement prior Board-
approved plans/policies and do not raise new policy issues.
Ms. Schaffner provided additional information regarding the enhanced immunities the District
would have under proposed action.
Public comment opened at 9:49 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 9:49 p.m.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt a resolution
delegating to the General Manager the authority to review and discretionarily approve technical
designs, plans and specifications for construction and engineering projects.
VOTE: 7-0-0
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
No committee reports
B. Staff Reports
Mr. Jaskulak reported staff will be installing laptops in the trucks used by Ranger staff. There
will be a demonstration of the new technology prior to the June 14, 2017 Board meeting.
Ms. Ruiz reported a special Board meeting will need to be held on June 6th or 7th related to the
Mt. Umunhum public access project.
The Board members provided their availability for those dates to the District Clerk.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Meeting 17-12 Page 10
Director Kishimoto reported she has been appointed to serve as an alternate representative for the
Santa Clara County LAFCo Independent Special Districts.
Director Siemens reported several Board members attended a recent meeting of the Bay Area
Open Space Council. Additionally, he attended CSDA Legislative Days to meet with Assembly
members and Senators.
The Board adjourned into closed session at 10:02 p.m.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: City of Campbell, Assessor’s Parcel Number 412-32-014
Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent
Negotiating Party: Brent Dressen, Colliers International
Under Negotiation: Terms and Conditions
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: Santa Clara County APN: 170-64-119
Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Sr. Real Property Agent
Negotiating Party: Wellington Park Investors
Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms
3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: Santa Clara County APN: 170-04-054
Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent
Negotiating Party: Pearlman Properties
Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms
4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 562-08-003
Agency Negotiator: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager
Negotiating Party: Val Lopez, Amah Mutsun Land Trust
Under Negotiation: Conservation Easement
ADJOURNMENT
President Hassett adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 11:45 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
June 6, 2017
Board Meeting 17-13
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, June 6, 2017
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
President Hassett called the special meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr (by teleconference), Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett
(by teleconference), Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle (by teleconference),
and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner,
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/ Administrative Services Director
Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer
Woodworth, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Area
Superintendent – Foothills Michael Jurich, Area Superintendent – Skyline
Craig Beckman, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Assistant General Counsel
Hilary Stevenson
1. Authorization for an additional $689,965 for construction of engineered Concrete
and Stone Veneered Trail Steps related to the Mount Umunhum Summit Project (Summit
Project) (R-17-86)
General Manager Steve Abbors provided introductory comments related the various alternatives
for moving forward with the Mount Umunhum Trail.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz described the steep and rough terrain that make up portions
of the Mt. Umunhum Trail.
Engineering and Construction Department Manager Jason Lin provided an overview of the
project, including structures and features currently under construction and previously completed
Meeting 17-13 Page 2
at the summit and the location of the proposed trail steps. The project is currently paused to
allow the District to complete its due diligence to evaluate the project site, including a proposal
to widen the steps area to allow for visitors to hike in both directions. Mr. Lin described work by
outside consultants to design the steps and the bid estimate received from D-Line Construction.
Director Riffle inquired if staff had looked at altering the trail alignment to avoid the rough
terrain.
Ms. Ruiz explained staff has avoided aligning the trail with Mt. Umunhum Road to avoid having
hikers on the road with vehicles driving to and from the summit. Additionally, the steep, rocky
nature of the hillside limits the potential locations for the trail.
Director Hanko inquired if information will be provided for visitors that may not be able to
navigate the steep nature of the trail.
Ms. Ruiz explained signage would be installed that describes the level of difficulty of the trail.
The design of the steps and railing will also make the trail more accessible for visitors.
Director Kishimoto suggested traffic along Mt. Umunhum Road will be limited enough to allow
visitors to walk along the road. Director Kishimoto also inquired whether the geology of the
slope would be able to withstand the poured concrete steps.
Ms. Ruiz explained the design allows the steps to be anchored into the hillside.
Director Harris reported a member of the public has asked her whether camping would be
allowed in the Mt. Umunhum area and suggested the District will need to think about this in the
future.
Director Riffle commented on the need to ensure the safety of hikers along the trail, including
the steps.
Area Supervisor – Foothills Michael Jurich reported the rest of the trail is complete is similar to
trails throughout the District and are fairly easy to climb.
Director Harris suggested additional railings to ensure children are safe on the steps.
Mr. Lin stated staff has discussed including additional railing or wire mesh to increase safety, but
aesthetics may be compromised. These issues could be addressed with the contingency funds or
retrofitting, if needed. These steps are lower and longer than the previously designed steps and
have handrails consistent with the upper and lower staircases already built as part of the summit
project.
Public comment opened at 2:38 p.m.
Leonard Marrufo spoke regarding his experience hiking in the area and commented on the
amount of money proposed for the project and the natural characteristics of Rancho San Antonio.
Public comment closed at 2:39 p.m.
Meeting 17-13 Page 3
Director Riffle spoke in favor of the General Manager’s recommendation.
Director Kishimoto expressed her opposition to the General Manager’s recommendation stating
her concerns related to the geology of the hill, the long-term sustainability of the steps, the cost
of maintaining steps built on an unstable hillside. Director Kishimoto stated that the limited
traffic on Mt. Umunhum Road could allow for hiking along the road and suggested redirecting
the trail loop to be along the road. Finally, Director Kishimoto spoke regarding the high cost of
the proposed project and its introduction at the late stage of the overall public access project.
Director Siemens spoke in favor of the General Manager’s recommendation and the long-term
value of the steps.
Director Harris expressed her concerns regarding the cost of the project.
Director Kishimoto expressed concern about completing all of the Measure AA projects with the
funds available.
Mr. Abbors commented that Measure AA funds are to complete portfolios of projects, and all
potential projects have not been identified or are certain. Additionally, grant funds may be used
to help the District get the best value for the Measure AA funds.
Director Kishimoto stated Controller Mike Foster’s projections use 2014 dollars, so the Measure
AA funds lose their value over the course of 30 years.
Director Hanko inquired if the trail could be completed without the proposed steps.
Mr. Abbors explained that if the motion does not pass, staff would likely restore the hillside to its
natural state and have two short unconnected trail segments.
Director Hanko expressed her concerns regarding whether all visitors would be able to hike the
trail, but stated many national parks have similarly steep trails.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to authorize
approval of a contract amendment with D-Line Constructors, Inc., for the Summit Project in the
amount of $599,969 and a separate 15% contingency of $89,996 for construction of the Mount
Umunhum Trail Steps, thus limiting the new, not-to-exceed total contract amount to $8,813,465.
VOTE: 5-1-1 (Director Kishimoto dissented; Director Harris abstained)
ADJOURNMENT
President Hassett adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 2:53 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
June 14, 2017
Board Meeting 17-14
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
President Hassett called the special meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle, and
Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Chief
Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak,
Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior Real Property Agent Allen
Ishibashi, Senior Planner Tina Hugg
Public comments opened at 5:01 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 5:01 p.m.
Real Property Manager Mike Williams and Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi
participated by teleconference.
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: Santa Clara County APN: 170-04-054
Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent
Negotiating Party: Pearlman Properties
Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms
Meeting 17-14 Page 2
General Manager Steve Abbors, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Stefan Jaskulak, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, and Senior
Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi left the room and/or teleconference and did not participate
in Items 2 or 3.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)):
(One potential case)
3. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code
Section 54957(b)(1)
Title of Employee: General Counsel
President Hassett adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 6:13 p.m.
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
President Hassett called the special meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
President Hassett reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle, and
Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Area
Manager – Skyline Craig Beckman, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, Lead Open Space Technician Don Mackessey, Maintenance
Supervisor Michael Gorman, Ranger Jessica Lucas, Land and Facilities
Manager Brian Malone, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
Jennifer Woodworth
1. Innovation Team Fog Harvesting Project Informational Report (R-17-71)
Area Manager- Skyline Craig Beckman described the initial goal of the Innovation Team and its
work on fog harvesting with the initial idea that staff would be installing collectors with the
purpose of supplying water for District needs such as cattle or wildlife troughs. Mr. Beckman
introduced the other members of the Innovation Team that helped staff and support the project.
Lead Open Space Technician Don Mackessy described the research conducted by the project
team in conjunction with United States Geological Survey (USGS) staff member Alicia
Torregrosa. Mr. Mackessy described the expanded project goals that were developed to evaluate
material choices, fog characteristics, and collector location and their relationship to collection
volume. Staff used their research to make decisions on the design of future fog collection
devices.
Meeting 17-14 Page 3
USGS staff member Ms. Torregrosa described the international network of coastal fog research
areas throughout the world. The fog collectors in Bay Area help USGS gather data to better
understand the types of fog in the area and how far inland the fog reaches.
Mr. Mackessy described the process for selecting the fog harvesting sites and reported the
Purisima location was visible to members of the public, which led to many inquiries related to
the project.
Maintenance Supervisor Michael Gorman described the process used to design the frames to
hold the collecting material.
Mr. Beckman described the working relationship among field staff and scientific experts and the
contributions of all, including staff time, materials, and equipment, that helped make the project
successful.
Ranger Jessica Lucas explained the data collected is being shared with partners, including the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and other researchers. In addition to
members of the public and other researchers that showed interest in the project, the project
inspired media interest including Bay Nature that has produced various articles and Open Roads
who produced a video.
Mr. Beckman described the potential future of the project explaining once sufficient data is
collected, staff will report out on the information in a way that supports decision making
regarding installation of practical collectors at other locations. Also staff will continue to
maintain existing collectors into the future as long as they provide useful data for USGS
research.
Director Siemens inquired regarding the types of mesh used to collect moisture.
Mr. Mackessy described the three types of mesh used for each of the arrays.
Director Riffle inquired regarding potential wildlife impacts of the collectors.
Ms. Torregrosa reported her own experience that bees are occasionally stuck in the collector
mesh. For the upcoming summer, NBD Nanotechnologies will be installing cameras to monitor
the arrays.
Director Riffle inquired regarding next steps for the project.
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse reported data collection will continue and will
provide information to help inform the Board for a future decision on whether to continue the
project.
Mr. Woodhouse described the future of the Innovation Team, including its benefit to District
staff members to expand their roles and experience at the District and inclusion of funds for the
Innovation Team to work on a new project in the upcoming fiscal year.
Public comments opened at 7:02 p.m.
Meeting 17-14 Page 4
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 7:02 p.m.
No Board action required.
President Hassett adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:02 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
President Hassett called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle, and
Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner,
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/
Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant
to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Natural Resources Manager
Kirk Lenington, Information Systems and Technology Manager Garrett
Dunwoody, Land & Facilities Manager Brian Malone, Visitor Services
Manager Michael Newburn, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Engineering &
Construction Manager Jay Lin, Human Resources Supervisor Candice
Basnight, Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kishimoto absent)
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
• Introduction of staff
o Chris Perry – Open Space Technician, SFO
o Jessica Vizena – Open Space Technician, SFO
o Tom Hanson – Equipment Mechanic Operator, FFO
o Alex Rodriquez – Open Space Technician, FFO
Meeting 17-14 Page 5
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:10 p.m.
No speakers.
Public comment closed at 7:10 p.m.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent
Calendar.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kishimoto absent)
1. Claims Report
2. Authorization to Reduce the District’s Unfunded Pension Liability by Making a $1
Million Pre-Payment to the California Public Employees Retirement System
(CalPERS) (R-17-70)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to deposit $1 Million into
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) CalPERS account, in order to reduce
the District’s unfunded pension liability.
Director Siemens inquired if pension costs are included in the Controller’s 30-year projections.
Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak explained how
personnel costs are included in the long-term financial models.
BOARD BUSINESS
3. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget & Action Plan (R-17-89)
Mr. Jaskulak presented the staff report. Mr. Jaskulak summarized the review of the proposed
Budget and Action Plan by the Action Plan and Budget Committee (Committee) and Board of
Directors. Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the changes to the Budget and Action Plan as recommended by
the Committee related to funding for the Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower Second Assessment and
Bear Creek Stables. Mr. Jaskulak provided a summary of the proposed FY2016-17 District
Budget, changes to the Classification and Compensation Plan, three proposed positions for the
Planning and Project Delivery business line, and responses to questions submitted by Board
members.
Director Harris inquired how grant funding would be included in the budget.
Mr. Jaskulak explained that any future grant funding received by the District not already
included in the budget would be included through future budget amendments.
Director Riffle requested clarification regarding funding for the Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower
second assessment.
Meeting 17-14 Page 6
General Manager Steve Abbors explained the District would fund the assessment but not design
development, for which the District is seeking grant funding.
Director Siemens inquired whether the lead based paint on the tower’s interior needed to be
removed.
Land & Facilities Manager Brian Malone explained the lead-based paint needs to be maintained
or removed for staff to safely access the building when needed.
Director Siemens commented on the high cost of building farm labor housing included in the
Action Plan and expressed his concerns that the scope has expanded beyond the District’s
mission.
Mr. Malone explained staff will be providing updated cost estimates for this project at the June
28, 2017 Board meeting. The cost estimate also includes funding for a water source and other
necessary improvements.
Mr. Abbors spoke regarding the District’s mission to preserve agriculture in the Coastal
Annexation Area and suggested the Board could have a future study session regarding the costs
of building farm labor housing.
Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick provided preliminary figures for building
the proposed farm labor housing, including well costs, which is required by San Mateo County.
Director Riffle stated his support for farm labor housing and its ability to support agriculture.
Finally, Mr. Jaskulak provided an explanation of how inflation impacts the Measure AA funding
source and provided an update on progress on Measure AA portfolios to date.
Public comment opened at 8:02 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 8:02 p.m.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle the motion to:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the FY2017-18 Budget and Three-Year Capital Improvement
Program.
2. Approve the FY2017-18 Action Plan.
3. Adopt a Resolution approving the Classification and Compensation Plan.
4. Approve three new positions in the Planning & Project Delivery business line.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kishimoto absent)
4. Demolition of Unoccupied Structure at 16075 Overlook Drive El Sereno Open Space
Preserve (R-17-68)
Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick provided the staff report describing
structural history, location, and current state of the Hayes House. Ms. Cuzick provided cost
Meeting 17-14 Page 7
estimates for demolition, repair, and rebuilding the house and summarized the District’s factors
to consider related to demolition. Finally, Ms. Cuzick described the recommendation and next
steps for the project if demolition is approved by the Board.
Director Hanko inquired regarding whether it was possible to recycle the building materials or
use them to rebuild the house elsewhere.
Ms. Cuzick reported that depending on the hazardous material report, the materials would be
disposed of following the District’s policy. Additionally, the costs would be large due to the need
remediate the materials and evaluate the structural integrity of the house.
Mr. Abbors reported he spoke with Mercury News reported Paul Rogers to discuss the agenda
item due to Mr. Rogers previous interest in this house. They will be touring the property
tomorrow.
Public comment opened at 8:15 p.m.
Andrew Bryant neighbor to the property requested an estimate for how long the demolition may
take.
Ms. Cuzick reported the estimated demolition time is two to three weeks.
Public comment closed at 8:17 p.m.
Director Cyr expressed his support for the General Manager’s recommendation.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to approve the
demolition of the unoccupied former employee residence at 16075 Overlook Drive El Sereno
Open Space Preserve.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kishimoto absent)
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Location of Public Meetings – Outreach and Civic Engagement
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Cyr reported on the May 31, 2017 Action Plan & Budget Committee meeting.
B. Staff Reports
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse reported on a fire along Highway 280 near Cristo
Ray and staff’s rapid response to the incident that helped prevent the fire from spreading to
Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. San Mateo County has built a temporary bypass trail
to allow bicycle access along dirt Alpine Road. Finally, Mr. Woodhouse provided an update on
Meeting 17-14 Page 8
the work at Rancho San Antonio being done by Santa Clara Valley Water District and an
upcoming stakeholders’ meeting regarding transit solutions for the preserve.
Mr. Abbors reported on the success of the legislative luncheon at Picchetti Ranch attended by
Directors Harris, Riffle, and Siemens and reported on recent hearings in the legislature related to
the District’s proposed purchase of San Jose Water Company land.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Director Harris reported her attendance at a Bay Trail Board meeting in Contra Costa County
where various grant projects were discussed.
Director Siemens reported on his work at the Daniels Nature Center.
Director Cyr reported on his and President Hassett’s attendance at the Special Parks District
Forum in Cleveland.
President Hassett spoke regarding the partnerships utilized by the host District to complete its
mission.
ADJOURNMENT
President Hassett adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 8:41 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
page 1 of 4
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 17-14
DATE 06-28-2017
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
75270 10215 - CalPERS-FISCAL SERVICES DIVISION - HB Prefunding pmt to CERBT for OPEB 16-17 06/15/2017 250,000.00$
75291 11369 - BANK OF THE WEST COMMERCIAL CARD USA $231.38 Chevron Charges 06/16/2017 51,091.04$
$135.70 Fuel for Mt Um Road Rental Truck 06/16/2017
$3,508.99 CDFW Fees, Car Wash, and Membership Fees 06/16/2017
$347.75 Training and Visitor Counter Supplies 06/16/2017
$200.21 Hotel - Calif Preserv Foundation Conf 06/16/2017
$3798.40 Field Supplies 06/16/2017
$861.82 Oxy Pack, Uniform Items, Office Supplies, Stickers 06/16/2017
$446.07 Weed Wrench Tools 06/16/2017
$2,747.71 Field, Office, and First Aid Supplies 06/16/2017
$959.27 Web Expenses and Lodging 06/16/2017
$567.45 Office Supplies and County Permit 06/16/2017
$5,531.80 - Permits 06/16/2017
$334.04 Field Supplies 06/16/2017
$231.74 - Hotel for AEP Conf San Francisco 06/16/2017
$1,665 Rodent Eradication, Proofing, And Clean Up - SR 06/16/2017
$1688.46 Field Supplies, Signs, Sit/Stand Desks 06/16/2017
$524.47 Uniforms, drinking fountain parts, retaining wall parts 06/16/2017
$2,292.15 Plumbing & Mower Parts 06/16/2017
$376.76 Tools, Uniform Items, Cups 06/16/2017
$228.74 Office Supplies & Graffiti Remover 06/16/2017
$118.02 Notifications and Vehicle Parts 06/16/2017
$214.97 Respirator and Sandbags 06/16/2017
$661.87 Wingding Event Expenses and Docent Recognition 06/16/2017
$109.51 Volunteer Supplies 06/16/2017
$150.44 Site Visit and Office Supplies 06/16/2017
$335.63 Drill Bits and Vehicle Tools 06/16/2017
$7.50 Parking fees for San Mateo County Planning Office 06/16/2017
$932.63 Electrical Parts, Bender Board, Rakes, Tools 06/16/2017
$674.34 Desk, Lunch Mtg Exp, Conf. Copies, Batteries, NOE Filing 06/16/2017
$209.17 Conrete and Drill Bits 06/16/2017
$2,524.40 Software, GIS Conference for 2 people 06/16/2017
$219.00 LogRite Tools 06/16/2017
$1,710.43 43 Cables, Computers, Antennas, SSL Certificate 06/16/2017
$369.91 Travel Expenses, Food and Lodging 06/16/2017
$1,153.52 Training, Parking Charges, Ticket $ Difference, Hyatt 06/16/2017
$556.64 Mechanics, Screwdriver, and Wrench Set 06/16/2017
$46.23 Padlock, Hasp, Water Bottles, Turn Buckles, Quick Linkks 06/16/2017
$132.88 Nob Hill and SmartNFinal Field Supplies 06/16/2017
$564.18 Ear Plugs & Fire Pump Primer 06/16/2017
$70 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Registration Fee 06/16/2017
-$205.85 Credit for cancelled stay Hyatt Hotel 06/16/2017
$902.50 Radar Gun and Case 06/16/2017
$392.55 Frame Picture, Calendar, Bulletin Board 06/16/2017
$846 Supplies, Printing, Storage, Conference, Voter Info 06/16/2017
page 2 of 4
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 17-14
DATE 06-28-2017
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
$49.99 Ladder 06/16/2017
$217.24 Pants, Boot Socks, White Boards, Phytophthora Training 06/16/2017
$379 Recruitment Job Postings 06/16/2017
$968.16 Drill Bit, Cleaning Supplies, Vehicle Parts, Plumbing 06/16/2017
$21.75 Volunteer Project Snacks 06/16/2017
$1,481.15 Office and Uniform Supplies 06/16/2017
$483 Ranger Flat Hat Carriers 06/16/2017
$865.98 Ergo items, Red Cross Training, Training Refreshments 06/16/2017
$693.79 Field and Safety Supplies 06/16/2017
$146.50 City Attorneys' Spring Conference; LCW Webinar 06/16/2017
$345.74 Subscription and Lodging 06/16/2017
$336.64 FFO Internet, MISAC, Mouse, Network Cables 06/16/2017
$382.84 Food, shirt, binder tabs 06/16/2017
$749.00 Recruitment Expenses 06/16/2017
$625.02 DHF Supplies, Tarp Straps 06/16/2017
$393.99 San Mateo Chamber of Commerce Charge, Prezi, DropBox 06/16/2017
$441.19 Wingding event and geocaching program supplies 06/16/2017
$1,400 ICMA Membership Fee 06/16/2017
$1,570.40 Car Wash A104, Hotel, Conference Registration 06/16/2017
$95.46 Paper, Wall File, Stickies, Storage Box, Partition Set 06/16/2017
Food for Recruitment 06/16/2017
75307 *10845 - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW-FINANCE Radio Dispatch Services Apr-Jun 2017 06/22/2017 41,728.25$
75302 10141 - BIG CREEK LUMBER CO INC LH Harrington Bridge 06/22/2017 23,598.31$
75318 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY Cooley Landing Native Planting 06/22/2017 18,367.49$
75356 10069 - WILFRED JARVIS INSTITUTE Training and Conference Calls 06/22/2017 13,868.75$
75353 *10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 06/22/2017 13,260.31$
75354 11785 - WAND, INC.WAND Taxonomy 06/22/2017 12,500.00$
75274 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT New Pole Saw/WBX-33 "Green"/Electric Mower/New Chainsaw 06/15/2017 11,422.46$
75338 11241 - QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION Engineering Services/Drawings Harkins Bridge 06/22/2017 11,298.20$
75319 11501 - HARRIS DESIGN BCR Public Access Design 06/22/2017 10,786.41$
75269 10723 - CALLANDER ASSOCIATES Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design & Construction Mgmt 06/15/2017 9,617.61$
75342 11552 - ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY SharePoint Development Services 06/22/2017 9,600.00$
75327 11617 - MIG, INC.Red Barn Area Planning, Design, Engineering, CEQA and Permitting 06/22/2017 9,210.34$
75285 11794 - SHILOH EVENT MANAGEMENT, INC EVENT PLANNING FOR MT UMUNHUM GRAND OPENING EVENT 06/15/2017 7,130.00$
75273 11699 - DAKOTA PRESS Printing of Summer 2017 Views Newsletter 06/15/2017 6,792.00$
75317 11609 - GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.Firewall/Security Licensing 06/22/2017 5,900.00$
75278 10058 - LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE Employment Law Services 06/15/2017 5,262.85$
75326 11465 - JANA SOKALE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Planning Consultant for Hendrys Creek Restoration 06/22/2017 4,785.00$
75311 11420 - DOUG EDWARDS Thistle Cleaning - PCR 06/22/2017 3,850.00$
75306 11368 - CITY OF CUPERTINO SCC Leadership Academy 06/22/2017 3,600.00$
75322 10642 - HMS INC Safety Policy Review/Asbestos+Lead Training 06/22/2017 3,500.00$
75272 10024 - CONSERVATION BY DESIGN Volunteer & Docent Program Structure Study 06/15/2017 3,200.00$
75300 11750 - BENEFICIAL DESIGNS, INC.Review of Trail and Wayfinding Signage - Mt Um Summit 06/22/2017 3,156.00$
75316 11783 - GHD Ravenswood Steel Bridge Ultrasonic Thickness Assessment 06/22/2017 3,000.00$
75320 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC Mini Excavator Rental (SA-MT UM)06/22/2017 2,977.06$
page 3 of 4
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 17-14
DATE 06-28-2017
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
75350 10775 - TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC HR Module Training/Programming Expenses 06/22/2017 2,408.33$
75301 11681 - BERKEY WILLIAMS LLP Mt. Um Cultural Conservation Esmt-AMLT May 2017 06/22/2017 2,226.16$
75330 10076 - OFFICE TEAM Front Desk Admin - A. Najafi 06/22/2017 2,036.06$
75303 11766 - BLANKINSHIP & ASSOCIATES, INC.Pesticide toxicological services - Districtwide 06/22/2017 1,905.00$
75349 10152 - TADCO SUPPLY Janitorial Supplies (RSACP)06/22/2017 1,833.15$
75332 11144 - PENINSULA MOTOR SPORTS Service - Yamaha Rhino/ATV/Kubota/Suzuki 06/22/2017 1,788.52$
75346 10585 - SOL'S MOBILE AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR, INC.T26/M16/T42/T31 Annual Inspection + P89 belt replacement 06/22/2017 1,677.70$
75294 10428 - ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES Alliant Insurance Crime Policy Renewal 2017-18 06/22/2017 1,620.00$
75355 11798 - WARD, JANINE Travel Expense Reimbursement 06/22/2017 1,583.61$
75321 10223 - HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Bear Creek Crosswalk Traffic Study 06/22/2017 1,460.00$
75289 11295 - TAYLOR, ANDREW Reimbursement New World Conference travel/per diem 06/15/2017 1,408.99$
75344 11224 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY - COMMUNICATIONS DEPT Repair of Radio Equipment 06/22/2017 1,246.95$
75331 10082 - PATSONS MEDIA GROUP Printing Services: Business Cards/Letterhead 06/22/2017 1,240.12$
75309 *10445 - COMMUNICATION & CONTROL INC Repeater Site Lease 06/22/2017 1,172.00$
75323 10493 - HSIEH, BENNY New World Systems Conference Travel Expenses 06/22/2017 957.44$
75280 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Install Radio Equipment - P114 06/15/2017 948.38$
75333 10084 - PETE SIEMENS CSDA Leg Days Reimbursement 06/22/2017 903.16$
75298 10122 - BECK'S SHOES District Provided Uniforms - Boots Mackessy/Vizena 06/22/2017 882.15$
75351 *10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Service (FOOSP/SA)06/22/2017 816.80$
75288 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Uniform Items For New EMO Hansen/Key Clips FFO 06/15/2017 812.82$
75337 10261 - PROTECTION ONE AO/SFO ALARM SERVICES 06/22/2017 784.91$
75325 10394 - INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRO U-Channel Posts for Trail Retaining Walls -- MB, WH 06/22/2017 783.00$
75287 11751 - STILLWATER SCIENCES Muzzi property riparian width evaluation 06/15/2017 740.50$
75336 11523 - PGA DESIGN, INC.Sears Ranch Road Staging Area 06/22/2017 660.02$
75343 11054 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT training 06/22/2017 660.00$
75314 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Protection/Field Supplies 06/22/2017 576.08$
75304 *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service (FFO)06/22/2017 524.57$
75357 11656 - WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.Mt Um Trailer Rental 5/30/17-6/29/17 06/22/2017 510.91$
75281 11380 - MIKE ANNUZZI Music for Legislative Luncheon 2017 06/15/2017 500.00$
75293 10357 - A-TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY Annual Fire Sprinkler System Test (FFO)06/22/2017 495.00$
75282 10461 - NORTHGATE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT 240 Cristich Road property purchase (SAO)06/15/2017 478.50$
75279 10189 - LIFE ASSIST First Aid Supplies 06/15/2017 443.63$
75271 11784 - CITIBANK, N.A.Cal Travel Store Card Pmt - Conf air - L. Bankoksh/Car rental L&F 06/15/2017 437.89$
75276 10051 - JIM DAVIS AUTOMOTIVE Repair AC - A68 06/15/2017 396.15$
75296 11048 - ARC Sears Ranch Road Print Sets 06/22/2017 392.39$
75277 10492 - LAUSTSEN, GRETCHEN AEP Conference Exp. Reimb, Mileage Reimb, Cell phone Mar-May2017 06/15/2017 377.79$
75312 10243 - DOWNING, BRENDAN Cell Phone reimbursement 03-16 to 06-17 06/22/2017 320.00$
75284 11042 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY-OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Livescan Services 06/15/2017 311.00$
75328 10191 - MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CENTER Water Fountains (RSACP)06/22/2017 292.95$
75347 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Base Rock & Concrete Waste (SAO & FFO)06/22/2017 247.39$
75340 *11526 - REPUBLIC SERVICES Monthly garbage services - ECM 06/22/2017 243.76$
75324 10421 - ID PLUS INC Name tags 06/22/2017 225.00$
75297 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Plumbing Supplies/Parts 06/22/2017 213.86$
75290 0000A - ALEX COLLIER Booth Fee for August 19 & 20, 2017 06/15/2017 200.00$
75345 10724 - SANTA CLARA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY Reimbursement for Wingding Event - materials and supplies 06/22/2017 198.00$
page 4 of 4
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 17-14
DATE 06-28-2017
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
75315 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)06/22/2017 173.63$
75329 10073 - NORMAL DATA Incidents Database work 06/22/2017 155.00$
75348 10107 - SUNNYVALE FORD M201 Repair 06/22/2017 150.00$
75308 *11530 - COASTSIDE.NET SFO Internet 06/22/2017 114.00$
75313 10524 - ERGO WORKS Ergo equipment 06/22/2017 102.00$
75275 10455 - HUGG, IANTHINA Cell phone reimbursement Jan-May 2017 06/15/2017 100.00$
75299 10275 - BECKMAN, CRAIG Beckman/Cell Phone Reimbursement 06/22/2017 100.00$
75310 10850 - COMPLETE PEST CONTROL Rodents / All Traps Clear 06/22/2017 100.00$
75305 10170 - CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY Fire Tool 06/22/2017 94.02$
75292 *10810 - A T & T Telephone Service 06/17 - WH 06/22/2017 89.32$
75341 10228 - RHF INC Radar Certification D03777 06/22/2017 83.00$
75268 11658 - APPLE, BRYAN Cell phone reimbursement March-May 2017 06/15/2017 60.00$
75286 10102 - SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Real Property legal matters & Muzzi legal retainer agreement 06/15/2017 60.00$
75295 10485 - AMERICAN RED CROSS-SVC CPR Training 06/22/2017 54.00$
75352 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services 06/22/2017 45.00$
75283 11625 - Reiter, Heather Mileage Reimbursement 06/15/2017 27.71$
75339 10134 - RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP)06/22/2017 27.25$
75334 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.Oil Filters 06/22/2017 20.54$
75335 *10180 - PG & E Monthly Electricity Service - WH/LHC 06/22/2017 6.79$
GRAND TOTAL 581,004.98$
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
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-17-85
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Agreement with Oregon State University to Test Revegetation Sites for Soil Diseases
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to approve an agreement with Oregon State University for an
amount not-to-exceed $90,000 to test revegetation sites in District preserves for soil diseases
and develop any recommended remedial actions.
2. Determine that the recommended action is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY
In recent years, several species of Phytophthora (water mold diseases) have been identified in
native plant nurseries and revegetation areas of California. Because of the emerging nature of
this pathogen’s spread within nurseries and the long time period over which the District has been
using nursery plants in revegetation sites, staff does not know the extent to which this pathogen
may be present in wildland areas. This agreement will authorize researchers with Oregon State
University to sample representative revegetation sites in District preserves to determine if they
are contaminated with Phytophthora soil diseases, to assess patterns and species, and to develop
recommended remedial actions to manage contaminated sites, if determined to be necessary.
This work is anticipated to be completed from 2017 through 2019 for an amount not-to-exceed
$90,000. Sufficient funds are included in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget for the first year of
work. Additional funds in the amount of $35,000 would be requested for the following fiscal
year (FY 2018-19) to complete the work.
DISCUSSION
In recent years, several species of Phytophthora (water mold diseases) have been identified in
native plant nurseries and revegetation areas of California. Inadvertent planting of
Phytophthora-infected nursery stock into native habitats has the potential to impact native
ecosystems and revegetation goals, and to spread into adjacent wildlands where control is
impossible. Many Phytophthora species appear to have a wide range of host plants species and
can occur in many different types of vegetation communities. For example, Phytophthora
ramorum is the exotic pathogen that causes Sudden Oak Death and has killed millions of oak
trees since escaping from commercial nurseries into the forests of California.
For three years, the District has been working closely with its native plant suppliers to make sure
nursery stock received is free of diseases. However, some of the 14 revegetation sites planted
R-17-85 Page 2
from 1993 to 2014 are likely to be contaminated and require testing to determine what remedial
actions might be necessary.
A Request for Proposals and Qualifications (RFP&Q) was sent to twelve researchers and
consultants and posted on the District website on March 15, 2017. Proposals were received from
Oregon State University and University of California, Berkeley. The Oregon State University
team of Drs. Jennifer Parke and Ebba Peterson was selected as the most qualified for the
following reasons:
• Their proposed research design will cover more sites;
• The team will test watershed conditions to determine historical context;
• Their approach is practical for the variety of site conditions present at District
revegetation sites;
• The team has experience testing Phytophthora conditions in nurseries; and
• The team will recommend practical remediation measures to reduce future risk.
The consultant will sample soil, plants, and waterways in a range of revegetation sites to
determine the disease status and what features may influence establishment and spread of soil
Phytophthoras. Samples will be taken from adjacent areas to determine background levels.
Once the distribution of Phytophthora species is determined, consultant will perform an analysis
of the geographic and historical variables that are associated with pathogen introduction. The
consultant will prepare a report that details the findings of Phytophthora presence in District
revegetation sites, recommends remedial actions for each contaminated site, and identifies
conditions that pose high risk for Phytophthora contamination to guide future revegetation
efforts.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the amount of $55,000 in the proposed FY2017-18 Natural
Resources Department budget to cover the initial year of testing. The total cost estimate for the
first year is less than the amount budgeted. Funds in the amount of $35,000 will be requested in
the Natural Resources Department budget for FY2018-19 to cover the cost of a second and final
year of testing and recommendations.
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
The action described in this item consists of information collection and minor alteration of
vegetation on existing officially designated wildlife management areas that will result in
protection and improvement of wildlife habitat. It will not result in serious or major disturbance
of any environmental or historical resources; removal of healthy, mature scenic trees; impacts to
environmental resources of hazardous or critical concern; significant effects; or cumulative
R-17-85 Page 3
impacts. None of the actions will disturb vistas from a scenic highway. These sites are not
located on a hazardous waste site. Therefore, this action is categorically exempt under Sections
15302 (Minor Alterations of Land) and 15306 (Information Collection) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the General Manager will execute an agreement with
Oregon State University to conduct the proposed research. Upon completion of the analysis of
revegetation sites and determination of potential remedial actions to be taken, if any, staff will
review with the Planning and Natural Resources Committee, and seek approvals and funding
from the Board of Directors as necessary.
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department
Prepared by:
Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Management Specialist
R-17-78
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Agreement to Manage Slender False Brome on Private Properties near District Preserves
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorize the General Manager to:
1. Approve a cooperative agreement with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation
District for a total of $100,000 in Fiscal Year 2017-18 to treat slender false brome on private
properties near District preserves.
2. Exercise the option to extend the agreement for a second and third year if the program is
successful for a total not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 over the three-year term.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has a program to manage slender false
brome (SFB) in San Mateo County to protect native redwood forests on its preserves and
adjacent private lands. Since May of 2014, a significant component of this program has been a
cooperative partnership with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) to
manage SFB on neighboring private parcels with the potential to infest District lands. If
approved by the Board of Directors, this cooperative agreement would continue the partnership
with the RCD to manage slender false brome on neighboring private property in the Woodside
area for a three-year period.
DISCUSSION
Slender false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum, SFB) is a non-native, invasive perennial grass
that is establishing in the redwood forests of San Mateo County and has the potential to alter the
natural resources and fire risk of these native forests.
Previously, the District’s SFB Program was managed primarily by a part-time contingent
employee with the assistance of a part-time intern. On March 26, 2014 (see R-14-48), the
District Board of Directors approved a three year cooperative agreement (similar to the
agreement structure presented in this report) with the RCD to manage slender false brome on
private properties in the Woodside area.
On March 9, 2016 (see R-16-21), the District Board of Directors approved a continuation of the
SFB Program; a ten-year plan to eradicate SFB from Thornewood Open Space Preserve and the
surrounding Woodside neighborhoods. Progress has been made on controlling SFB on District
preserves and surrounding private properties. In areas where the RCD has performed multiple
years of treatment of SFB on private property, the percent cover of the noxious weed has been
R-17-78 Page 2
reduced from an average of 54% down to 19%. Additionally, the RCD worked with landowners
to treat 61 acres on 14 properties, which are now maintained by the owners and are essentially
SFB free. In 2009, the total net area of land infested with SFB was estimated to be 100 acres (40
acres of District land and 60 acres of adjacent private lands). This assessment underestimated
the extent of the SFB infestation, as surveys were not conducted outside of the Woodside area
prior to 2015. SFB infestation is now estimated to be 196 acres (40 acres of District land and
156 acres of adjacent private lands) due to an increase in search area. SFB has been identified
within La Honda Creek, El Corte de Madera, and Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserves and surrounding areas. SFB found on District land is managed by a separate contract,
staff, and volunteers. Since 2015, SFB has been treated on 105 private properties and over a
total of 106 acres. An additional 34 critical properties consisting of 1,243 acres have been
surveyed and found to be free of slender false brome.
The RCD has partnered with the District in managing the control of SFB on private property and
they are well-qualified to continue assisting the District in this type of work. The RCD is a non-
regulatory special district that works directly with private property owners to protect, conserve,
and restore natural resources through information, education, and technical assistance programs.
Their staff has experience surveying for invasive plants, GIS mapping, community outreach, and
funding the installation of resource protection projects on private properties.
This three-year cooperative agreement would fund the RCD in managing the control of SFB on
private properties in San Mateo County. The amount of private property acres to be treated is
expected to be approximately 110 acres and to occur on the approximately 105 private properties
in the Woodside and La Honda areas per year. Similar to the District’s last agreement with the
RCD, Years Two and Three of this agreement are optional and contingent on both parties
determining that the first year is successful. In Year Two and Year Three, the treatment acres are
expected to increase by approximately ten percent. The RCD would be responsible for
communicating with the private property owners, surveying their properties, treating slender
false brome therein, post-treatment surveys, and submitting progress reports to the District. The
District will continue to fund treatment of SFB on properties near District preserves (and
therefore pose a risk of infesting District lands). The agreement allows the RCD to apply for and
receive grant funds from other sources for treatment of SFB at other locations in San Mateo
County that are not near District preserves.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed FY2017-18 budget includes funds in the amount of $100,000 for the first year of a
new three year agreement for managing SFB on private properties. Should this agreement be
extended for years two through three, funding would be included as part of the proposed annual
budgets for consideration by the Board of Directors.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
No committee review was completed for this contract extension. The full Board of Directors
received an update on the SFB program on March 9, 2016 and approved a 10-year work program
to control SFB on District lands, including continuing to partner with the RCD on control efforts.
R-17-78 Page 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The treatment of SFB was evaluated in the District’s Integrated Pest Management Program,
Environmental Impact Report, adopted by the Board of Directors on December 14, 2014. The
RCD will follow all conditions set out by that environmental review.
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the General Manager will be authorized to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the RCD to manage slender false brome on private properties in the
Woodside and La Honda areas.
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resource Manager
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, IPM Coordinator
R-17-83
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Authorization to Purchase Capital Equipment for Fiscal Year 2017-18
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of
General Services and associated contract dealers for five (5) patrol vehicles and nine (9)
maintenance vehicles, for a total cost not-to-exceed $740,000.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of
General Services and associated contract dealers for one (1) aerial lift truck, one (1) tracked
chipper, and one (1) mini-excavator, for a total cost not-to-exceed $330,000.
SUMMARY
The District’s current five-year capital equipment schedule provides for replacing five (5) patrol
vehicles, replacing two (2) maintenance vehicles, and acquiring seven (7) additional maintenance
vehicles in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18. Additionally, it includes three (3) new equipment
purchases. The cost of the vehicles and equipment is not-to-exceed $1,070,000. There are
sufficient funds budgeted in FY2017-18 to cover this cost. The District's ability to purchase
vehicles through an existing contract with the California Department of General Services (DGS)
provides a significant cost savings and greatly reduces the amount of staff time that would
otherwise be required if the District conducted a separate bid process for each purchase. 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).
DISCUSSION
Eight (8) General Capital Vehicles
Eight (8) vehicles will be purchased using General Capital Funds: Five (5) patrol vehicles and
two (2) maintenance vehicles 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. One (1) additional
maintenance vehicle, a flat-bed dump truck, will be purchased to support road work and material
transport. It will also provide additional hauling capacity for towing smaller equipment.
R-17-83 Page 2
Six (6) Maintenance Vehicles for New Positions
Six (6) vehicles are required for new positions created as part of the District’s Financial
Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) implementation: One (1) vehicle will be assigned to
the new Maintenance Supervisor position, one (1) vehicle will be assigned to and shared by the
new Facilities Maintenance Supervisor and the new Facilities Maintenance Specialist, and one
(1) vehicle will be assigned to the new Capital Projects Field Manager. All of these positions are
required to make regular site visits in the field. Three (3) additional maintenance vehicles are
needed to support the additional staff who make up the new special projects crews that are
assigned to capital improvement projects, such as trail construction. These new staff members
include one Lead Open Space Technician, one Open Space Technician and four new Seasonal
Open Space Technicians (who were hired April 1, at the beginning of the construction season).
Those vehicles include two transport vehicles for special projects staff and one new dump truck
for the field.
Two (2) General Capital Heavy Equipment (Attachment 1)
Aerial Lift Truck – The purchase of one (1) dedicated aerial lift truck will allow staff to safely
conduct elevated tree and structure work throughout the District. This equipment will be used by
staff to more efficiently clear overhead limbs from District fire roads. Additionally, it can be
used to reach and service the recently installed golf ball protection net at the Fremont Older
Parking Lot.
Large Track Chipper –The purchase of one (1) chipper will increase efficiency for managing fire
breaks, structure clearance, and access roads. Tree mortality close to roads and structures is on
the rise (drought, sudden oak death). Managing fire roads, firebreaks, and fire safety clearance
around structures requires the chipping of large woody material, demanding significant staff
time. The large track chipper has an arm to self-load and can reach areas inaccessible with a
trailer chipper, which will streamline productivity to clear vegetation along fire roads and off-
road fire breaks, resulting in reduced staff time and reduced risk of injury. This equipment will
complement the chipping capacity of the current trailer chipper by adding off-road ability and the
self-loading mechanism.
One (1) New Special Projects Crew Heavy Equipment (Attachment 1)
Cat 301.8 Mini Excavator - the Skyline Special Projects Crew will start July 3, 2017. The
Special Projects Crew’s focus is trail construction so the purchase of one (1) mini excavator
provides the key piece of equipment for building trail. The mini excavator is also an important
piece of equipment for trail maintenance and repairs, fence installation, and other excavation
projects for the maintenance crews. It has been difficult to rent mini excavators that have a
thumb and are the right size to handle trail construction. This excavator will be the third unit in
the Skyline fleet—two of which are committed to Oljon Trail construction this summer and to La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve trail construction for the next several construction seasons.
Having three mini excavators will leave one excavator available for routine maintenance needs.
The table below contains the breakdown of estimated costs by vehicle. Costs include tools and
additional equipment needed to outfit the vehicles, which can vary depending upon the function
of each vehicle.
R-17-83 Page 3
Vehicle/Equipment
Description
Additional or
Replacement
Cost Quantity Total
General Capital Vehicles
Patrol Vehicle:
Ford F350 or similar
Replacement $53,000 5 $265,000
Maintenance Vehicle: Dodge
Quad or similar
Replacement $60,000 1 $60,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F350 or similar
Replacement $40,000 1 $40,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F550 Flatbed
Additional $55,000 1 $55,000
Maintenance Vehicles for New Positions
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F350 or similar
Additional $40,000 1 $40,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F350 or similar
Additional $37,000 1 $37,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Toyota Tacoma or similar
Additional $35,000 1 $35,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Crewcab Toyota or similar
Additional $44,000 1 $44,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
2-axle dump truck
Additional $120,000 1 $120,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Crewcab Toyota or similar
Additional $44,000 1 $44,000
General Capital Heavy Equipment
Maintenance Equipment:
Aerial lift truck
Additional $100,000 1 $100,000
Maintenance Equipment:
Large track chipper
Additional $190,000 1 $190,000
New Special Projects Crew Heavy Equipment
Maintenance Equipment:
Cat mini-excavator
Additional $40,000 1 $40,000
Total $1,070,000
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2017–2018 District Budget includes $740,000 for District Vehicles and $330,000 for
Field Equipment. There is sufficient funding in the capital budget of the General Fund to cover
the recommended purchase contracts.
FY2017–2018
District Vehicle Budget $740,000
Spent to date (as of 6/28/17): $0
Encumbrances: $0
[Recommended Action – Costs] $740,000
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0
R-17-83 Page 4
FY2017–2018
District Equipment Budget $330,000
Spent to date (as of 6/28/17): $0
Encumbrances: $0
[Recommended Action – Costs] $330,000
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0
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. Equipment Images
2. District Vehicle Fleet Report
3. Fleet Replacement Guidelines
4. Comparable Agency Vehicle Replacement Guidelines
Responsible Department Head:
Brian Malone, Land & Facilities Services
Prepared by:
Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land & Facilities Services
Attachment 1
Equipment Images
Aerial Lift Truck Example
Large Track Chipper Example
Cat 301.8 Mini Excavator Example
Attachment 2
District Vehicle Fleet Report
June 19, 2017
The District maintains an inventory of 79 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 80-95,000 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 replacement 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.
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 in to 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
Fiscal Year 2016–2017
(31) vehicles total, 35 staff
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 (21) 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
(8 staff, 8 vehicles)
Trucks assigned to field office pools. Individual vehicles were previously
assigned to individual rangers. It was decided that the vehicles would be
transitioned from ranger assignments to field office pool assignments, as
maintaining a ratio of one vehicle to one ranger is not sustainable, given
projected growth of District. (15 staff, 13 vehicles)
o (2) Half ton trucks (Ford F150 typical)
Trucks assigned to Seasonal Rangers, available as back up patrol vehicles (2
staff, 2 vehicles)
FY18
(31) vehicles total (no additional vehicles), 35 staff
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 (21) 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
(8 staff, 8 vehicles)
Trucks assigned to field office pools. Individual vehicles were previously
assigned to individual rangers. It was decided that the vehicles would be
transitioned from ranger assignments to field office pool assignments, as
maintaining a ratio of one vehicle to one ranger is not sustainable, given
projected growth of District. (15 staff, 13 vehicles)
o (2) Half ton trucks (Ford F150 typical)
Trucks assigned to Seasonal Rangers, available as back up patrol vehicles (2
staff, 2 vehicles)
MAINTENANCE VEHICLES
Maintenance vehicles replaced at 85-100,000 miles and/or 10-15 years
FY17
(35) vehicles total, 53 staff (3 of those are vacant: Maintenance Supervisor, Facilities
Maintenance Supervisor, and Facilities Maintenance Specialist)
o (7) Trucks w/ four-wheel drive (Ford F150 or Toyota Tacoma typical)
Assigned to Area Managers (2 staff, 2 vehicles) and Maintenance Supervisors (5
staff, 5 vehicles)
o (5) Commercial trucks (Peterbuilt or International typical)
Vehicles are two (2) water trucks and three (3) large dump trucks for various
projects and transporting large equipment
o (23) Service Trucks (23 vehicles, 26 permanent staff and 17 seasonal staff)
(8) 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 three (3)
are service body vehicles set up for Equipment Mechanic/Operator use
(15) 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
(42) vehicles total (7 additional vehicles), 56 staff
o (10) Trucks w/ four-wheel drive (Ford F150 or Toyota Tacoma typical)
Assigned to Area Managers (2 staff, 2 vehicles), Maintenance Supervisors (6
staff, 6 vehicles), Facilities Maintenance Supervisor and Facilities Maintenance
Specialist (2 staff, 1 vehicle), Capital Projects Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle)
o (6) Commercial trucks (not assigned to staff) (Peterbuilt or International typical)
Vehicles are two water trucks and four large dump trucks for various projects and
transporting large equipment
o (26) Service Trucks (26 vehicles, 26 permanent staff and 17 seasonal staff)
(9) 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 four (4) are
service body vehicles set up for Equipment Mechanic/Operator use
(17) 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
(13) vehicles total (91 staff)
o (7) Vehicles shared by all administration staff, available for reservation via internal
Outlook calendar
Two hybrid cars (Toyota Prius typical), two hybrid SUVs (Ford Escape typical),
three SUVs with four-wheel drive (Ford Explorer/Toyota 4Runner typical)
o (4) Trucks with four-wheel drive (Ford F150 typical)
One vehicle assigned to Engineering & Construction Department, one assigned
to Natural Resources Department, two assigned to Volunteer Program Leads
o (2) SUVs with four-wheel drive (Jeep Wranglers)
One assigned to Land & Facilities Manager and one to Real Property
Department
FY18
(13) vehicles total (91 staff includes only approved positions) (no additional vehicles)
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
Employee-to-Vehicle Ratio Tables
Current Fiscal Year 2016-2017
Employee
Category
Number of
Employees*
Number of
Transport
Vehicles
Number of
Commercial
Vehicles
Ranger 35 31 0
Maintenance 50 30 5
Administrative 91 13 0
Total 176 74 5
Proposed for Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Employee
Category
Number of
Employees*
Number of
Transport
Vehicles
Number of
Commercial
Vehicles
Replacement
Transport
Vehicles**
Additional
Transport
Vehicles**
Additional
Commercial
Vehicles**
Ranger 35 31 0 5 0 0
Maintenance 56 36 6 2 6 1
Administrative 91 13 0 0 0 0
Total 182 80 6 7 6 1
*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 beginning 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 facilitates a shared
fleet. There are also specialty vehicles, such as the large trucks, that require commercial driver’s license
that 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 plug-in hybrids and smaller Ford F150 trucks for
seasonal ranger aides. In addition, diesel trucks have been replaced to meet new emissions guidelines.
Several additional measures may be evaluated in the future. A future evaluation o f the Fire program may
recommend removing pumpers from every patrol truck 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 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, 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.
M
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Fleet Replacement Guidelines
May 24, 2017
Attachment 3
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 4
Agency Years Miles Other Considerations
East Bay Parks District Cars & Trucks = 10 yrs
Large Vehicles = 15 yrs
Cars & Trucks = 100,000 mi
Large Vehicles = 150,000 mi
‐typically pushed back 2‐3 years due to budget cuts
and lack of funds
San Mateo Parks Cars & Trucks = 8‐10 yrs Cars & Trucks = 80‐100,000 mi ‐compliance issues
‐money in the vehicle replacement fund (VPF)
‐value at auction which pays into the VPF
‐large equipment and truck replacements at
discrection of department & board due to large
budget
Santa Clara Parks Cars & Trucks = 10 yrs
Large Vehicles = 15 yrs
Patrol Vehicles = 5 yrs
Cars & Trucks = 100,000 mi
Large Vehicles = 150,000 mi
Patrol Vehicles = 95,000 mi
‐cost per mile analysis (including labor & parts)
‐saftey features, fuel economy, and vehicle
emissions
‐vehicles that service public health & saftey get
overall priority
‐follows Santa Clara County guidelines, which
presumably accounts for primarliy street‐driven
vehicles, not off‐road use
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Cars & Trucks (AO) = 20 yrs
Maintenance Vehicles = 10‐15 yrs
Patrol Vehicles = 7‐10 yrs
Cars & Trucks (AO) = 100,000 mi
Maintenance Vehicles = 85‐100,000 mi
Patrol Trucks = 80‐90,000 mi
‐amount of money that has been spent on repairs
and if that exceeds purchase price
‐condition/safety/reliability issues
‐down time
‐fuel efficiency and emissions guidelines
5/24/2017
Comparable Agency Vehicle Replacement Guidelines
R-17-77
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Contract amendment with H.T. Harvey & Associates for Bat Relocation and Habitat
Replacement at the former Alma College site at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Amend a contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates for the Alma College Bat Relocation and
Habitat Replacement Project in an amount of $71,432, and allocate a separate contingency of
$9,473, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $104,207.
SUMMARY
The Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project includes demolition of several
hazardous structures, and sealing and stabilization of the Chapel and 1934 Library. In
accordance with the Board-certified Environmental Impact Report for the Bear Creek Redwoods
Preserve Plan, which includes the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan, bat
colonies that occupy the structures need to be excluded and relocated prior to demolition or
stabilization to avoid impacts to bat populations. The General Manager recommends amending
an existing contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates to complete the design and permitting of the
bat exclusion and habitat replacement work. Sufficient funds are available in the Fiscal Year
2017-18 budget for work completed next fiscal year. Funds for work completed in subsequent
fiscal years, including monitoring, is included in the three-year Capital Improvement Program.
DISCUSSION
In September 2015, the District executed a contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates to complete
bat population surveys at the former Alma College in the amount of $23,302. The original
project scope included completion of fall, winter, and spring surveys accompanied by a bat
survey report, as well as the preparation of a Bat Exclusion and Habitat Replacement Plan. The
surveys determined that the former Alma College buildings support day-roosting and maternity
roosting habitat for various species of bats, including Yuma myotis, Mexican free-tailed bat,
pallid bat and/or big brown bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. The chapel supports a significant
maternity colony of bats with upwards of 500 individuals. Pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared
bat are listed as Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
In January 2017, the Board approved the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan and certified the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which evaluates potential impacts related to the demolition
of hazardous structures, stabilization of key structures, and rehabilitation of cultural landscape
elements (See R-17-15). These actions could result in direct impacts to special status bats, or
indirect impacts to the local bat populations due to loss of roosting habitat. The demolition and
R-17-77 Page 2
stabilization of the structures within the former Alma College site is dependent upon the humane
exclusion and relocation work of the existing bat colonies, which currently occupy many of the
remaining structures.
The Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan includes actions to protect and maintain bat colonies
inhabiting the dilapidated structures at the former Alma College site. Since these structures will
be demolished or sealed as part of the site rehabilitation project, creation of replacement habitat
is included in the Preserve Plan. Habitat replacement is also required mitigation for loss of
suitable breeding habitat for the special-status Townsend’s big eared bat and pallid
bat. Construction of bat houses are recommended for the majority of species known to occur at
the site. However, due to the particular roosting requirements of Townsend’s big eared bat, a
cave-roosting species, retention and minor improvements to the mansion carport structure
(Attachment 2) were recommended by H.T. Harvey and Associates, and included in the Preserve
Plan. The carport would remain closed to the public. Measures to enhance public safety around
the carport and associated mansion ruins are included in the design of the Alma College Cultural
Landscape Rehabilitation Project (see R-17-186).
The recommended contract amendment would provide specific plans and specifications to
construct the bat houses and make minor improvements to the carport structure to enhance its
habitat value (such as painting the ceiling black). The contract amendment also includes five
years of post-construction monitoring to determine if the retained and replacement habitat is
functioning and if not, whether additional adaptive management is needed to improve the
performance success of the relocated habitat. The bat exclusion and replacement work will
allow the demolition and sealing of the Alma College structures to proceed on schedule.
More specifically, the contract amendment includes the following:
1. Preparation of design features for replacement and retained habitat
2. Preparation of a five-year mitigation and monitoring plan (MMP), which will identify
remedial measures for elements that do not meet performance criteria
3. Regulatory agency consultation (California Department of Fish and Wildlife)
4. Bat removal prior to demolition/sealing and construction biological monitoring
5. Five years of post-construction monitoring and reporting
6. Bear Creek Stables winter and summer surveys to inform the stables site improvement
work
FISCAL IMPACT
This project is part of Measure AA Portfolio #21, Bear Creek Redwoods Public Recreation and
Interpretation Projects. The Planning Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 Budget for the
Bear Creek Redwoods Alma College Cultural Landscape includes funds for bat relocation and
habitat replacement.
FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20
MAA 21-006 Planning Budget $347,050 $575,000 $900,550 $2,177,300
Spent to Date (as of 05/31/17): $179,964 -- -- --
Encumbrances: $8,804 -- -- --
PGA Design Inc., Agreement
Proposed Amount:
$0 $300,000 $290,008
R-17-77 Page 3
Proposed Contract Amendment (H.T. Harvey): $0 $35,000 $15,000 $7,000
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $258,282 $240,000 $595,542 $2,170,300
The following table outlines the Measure AA #21 Portfolio budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal
impact related to the Alma College Bat Relocation and Habitat Replacement Project. This project
supports the Measure AA #21 Portfolio by mitigating the impacts to bat colonies that would
otherwise result from demolition and rehabilitation of the former Alma College.
MAA 21 Portfolio Appropriation: $17,478,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 05/31/17): $649,814
Encumbrances: $622,869
PGA Design/Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation $590,008
Alma College Bat Relocation and Habitat Replacement Project $80,905
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $15,534,404
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Board of Directors approved the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project,
which includes the proposed bat removal and habitat replacement on January 25, 2017 as part of
the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The relocation of bats from Alma College and construction of habitat replacement was included
in the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR, which was certified by the Board on January 25,
2017 (R-17-15).
NEXT STEPS
Pending Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to amend the contract with H.T.
Harvey to finalize the bat exclusion and habitat replacement recommendations. In the fall of
2017, staff will work with H.T. Harvey and a contractor to complete the construction work for
the habitat replacement features to allow for the subsequent sealing and stabilization of the
chapel, and prepare for future demolition work.
Attachment(s)
1. Location Map
2. Photos of the Former Alma College Carport
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Bryan Apple, Planner II
Alma College
Mid peni nsula Regio na lOpen S pa ce Di stri ct
June 2017(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.
M R OS D Pr es e r ves
I
ú 1 9 3 4 L i b r a r y1934 L i b r a r y
C a r p o r tCarport
Attachment 1 - Project Location - Former Alma College
Auditoriu m/LIbrary a ddition
Classroo m
Utility building/Garage
Retain and Stabilize
Briggs Creek
B ri g g s C reek
Aldercroft Creek
Aldercr o f t Creek
We b b C r e e k
C oll i n s C reek
D y erCreek
Z
a
y
a
nte
C
re
e
k
Bear Creek RedwoodsBear Creek RedwoodsOpen Space PreserveOpen Space Preserve
Alma Colleg e
B e a r C r e e k R o a d
£¤17
C h a p e lChapel
U p p e r L a k eUpper L a k e
Shed
Remove/Demol ish
Dormitory ruin s
Carport - Retain for Bat Habitat
Bear Creek RedwoodsBear Creek RedwoodsOpen Space PreserveOpen Space Preserve
B
e
ar C
re
e
k
R
o
a
d
ATTACHMENT 2 – PHOTOS OF FORMER ALMA COLLEGE CARPORT
Northwest exposure of carport
Open-air interior of the carport
Open-air interior of the carport looking toward the rooms
Room inside the carport
R-17-84
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Agreement with City of Mountain View to Provide District Radio Dispatch Services
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to execute a one-year agreement with the City of Mountain View
to provide the District 24-hour radio dispatch service, with the option to extend the agreement for
one additional year, in an amount not-to-exceed $197,800 in Fiscal Year 2017–18 and an amount
not-to-exceed $217,810 for Fiscal Year 2018–19.
SUMMARY
In May 2007, the District entered into a six-year agreement with the City of Mountain View to
provide radio dispatch services. The terms allowed for two extensions (of two years each) to the
agreement if mutually agreed to by both parties. In August 2013, the District and Mountain View
executed the first extension of the agreement. In July 2015, the Board authorized a second
extension of the agreement. The agreement is expiring on June 30, 2017. The General Manager
recommends a new agreement for one year, not-to-exceed $197,800 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017–
18, with the option to extend the agreement for one additional year, for an amount not-to-exceed
$217,810 for FY2018–19. During FY2017–18, District staff will complete a request for
proposals (RFP) for future competitive radio dispatch services.
DISCUSSION
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.
The preparation and release of a Request for Proposals for District radio dispatch services was on
the District work plan for FY2016–17. However, this was deferred due to a vacancy in the Land
and Facilities Services Department, with the Management Analyst position, due to
reorganization and a promotion. With the pending expiration of the current agreement and the
critical need for uninterrupted dispatch services, the General Manager recommends a new
agreement with the City of Mountain View to continue these services.
The City of Mountain View’s dispatch services have been very satisfactory. Reliable radio
dispatch service is critically important to the District field employees and public safety needs.
R-17-84 Page 2
The City of Mountain View has proven they can provide these necessary services on a
professional and reliable basis.
Annual increases in the contract since the second year of the original agreement were between
3% and 5%. The increase between the Fiscal Year 2016–17 contract and the proposed FY2017–
18 contract is 19%. The increased cost above normal inflationary costs is due to Mountain View
adding a 15% administrative cost recovery to their proposal. The administrative cost includes
administrative overhead such as information technology, human resources, and management
costs. Mountain View has been charging a 15% administrative cost for police services to other
external partners (such as concert event coverage) for many years and decided to charge the
District the same percentage to recover their true costs.
During FY2017–18, District staff will complete a Request for Proposals (RFP) for radio dispatch
services to ensure the District receives competitive proposals for these services. The second year
extension option allows for potential unanticipated schedule delays in the RFP process. The RFP
will be released in the fall of 2017 so that the selection and negotiation of the new agreement can
be completed by the end of the fiscal year.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the Land and Facilities Services Department Support Services
budget for radio dispatch services to cover the cost of the recommendation. The total cost
estimate is equal to (or less than) the amount budgeted, which is not-to-exceed $197,800 in
FY2017–18. If the agreement is extended for an amount not-to-exceed $217,810 for an
additional year, funding will be included in the proposed budget for FY2018–19.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, the General Manager will enter into a one-year agreement with the
City of Mountain View for dispatch services through June 30, 2018, with an option to extend for
a second year.
Attachment
1. MROSD-Mt View Radio Dispatch Agreement
Responsible Department Head:
Brian Malone, Land & Facilities Services
R-17-84 Page 3
Prepared by:
Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land & Facilities Services
JC/7/POL
304-05-25-17AG-E 1 of 6
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
AND MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR
THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY AND NONEMERGENCY
COMMUNICATION SERVICES
This AGREEMENT is dated for identification this 29th day of June 2017, by and
between the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California charter city and municipal
corporation, whose address is 500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540, Mountain View,
California, 94039-7540 (hereinafter “CITY”), and MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT, an independent special district (Internal Revenue Code, Section
170(c)(1)), whose address is 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California, 94022-1404
(hereinafter “DISTRICT”).
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, CITY desires to furnish communication services to DISTRICT
through utilization of CITY facilities and staff located at 1000 Villa Street, Mountain
View; and
B. WHEREAS, CITY is willing to furnish said services for a mutually agreed
upon sum; and
C. WHEREAS, the parties have determined the computer-aided dispatch system
and records management system owned by CITY will be an effective method of
communication and record keeping for DISTRICT; and
D. WHEREAS, CITY and DISTRICT entered into an agreement for CITY to
provide DISTRICT with communication services, dated July 1, 2007, and such
agreement has been amended and extended and will terminate on June 30, 2017; and
E. WHEREAS, the parties desire for CITY to continue to provide DISTRICT
communication services.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual promises
contained herein, DISTRICT does hereby engage CITY, and CITY agrees, to perform the
services set forth herein in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
///
///
ATTACHMENT 1
JC/7/POL
304-05-25-17AG-E 2 of 6
1. Description of Services. Emergency and nonemergency telephone
answering:
a. CITY’s Responsibilities:
(1) CITY will provide DISTRICT with telephone answering, personnel
notification, and equipment dispatching, including status keeping and associated
activity reports and date inquires, in response to fielding a request. CITY will not be
responsible for answering DISTRICT’s nonemergency administrative phone calls
during normal weekday DISTRICT office hours.
(2) CITY will provide DISTRICT with services set forth in Clause 1.a.,
above, on a twenty-four (24) hour/day basis, three hundred sixty-five (365) days per
year.
(3) The geographic file of DISTRICT’s area responsibilities required for
the computer-aided dispatch system will be maintained and updated by CITY and
DISTRICT personnel.
(4) Audio recordings of all incoming emergency and nonemergency
incident calls, as well as radio messages transmitted and received on primary dispatch
frequencies, shall be continuously recorded and retained by CITY for a minimum of one
hundred (100) days following the date of the call or message.
(5) CITY will provide DISTRICT with a quarterly activity report
through CITY’s records management system, if requested by DISTRICT.
b. DISTRICT’s Responsibilities:
(1) Clear Radio Reception. DISTRICT shall maintain its radio
equipment in a manner that will allow clear reception that is free from static, squelching
tails, and interference.
(2) Equipment Maintenance and Replacement. Equipment purchased
and owned by DISTRICT shall be maintained and replaced at DISTRICT’s expense.
(3) Information Updates. DISTRICT shall provide and maintain
timely, accurate geographic data and related emergency information necessary for the
efficient dispatching of emergency resources by CITY. DISTRICT shall incur all costs
related to updating information within DISTRICT.
(4) Confidential Information. DISTRICT shall provide CITY with
proof of State-required information on all DISTRICT personnel having access to
JC/7/POL
304-05-25-17AG-E 3 of 6
confidential information and furnish such information necessary to build the required
security files. DISTRICT is responsible for proper use of criminal justice information
disseminated by CITY. CITY shall not be liable in the event of misuse.
2. Operational Responsibilities. All matters concerning Communications
procedures, operations, complaints, requests for changes, and similar operational
matters shall be approved by DISTRICT’s Operation Manager and submitted to CITY’s
Communications Operation Supervisor.
3. Schedule and Term. The schedule for performing said services is as follows:
CITY shall furnish the agreed-upon services as set forth in this Agreement
commencing on July 1, 2017 and ending on June 30, 2018. This Agreement may be
extended for up to a one (1) year period as mutually agreed upon by CITY and
DISTRICT. In the event both parties agree to extend this Agreement, it shall be
determined four (4) months (prior to extension commencement) with the compensation
to be determined based on updated employee and salary benefits.
4. Compensation. Year 1 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018): DISTRICT shall pay
CITY a fee for dispatching services under this Agreement in the amount of One
Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($197,800).
5. Payment Schedule. Total compensation for Fiscal Year 2017-18 is One
Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($197,800). DISTRICT shall
remit CITY quarterly payments for each respective year’s service on or before
September 30, December 31, March 31, and June 30.
6. Independent Agency. It is agreed that DISTRICT is an independent agency
and all persons working for or under the direction of DISTRICT are DISTRICT’s agents
and employees, and said persons shall not be deemed agents or employees of CITY.
7. Hold Harmless.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CITY shall defend, indemnify,
and hold DISTRICT, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, harmless from any
liability for damage or claims of same, including, but not limited to, personal injury,
property damage, and death, which may arise from services or operations of CITY or
CITY’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees under this Agreement. CITY
shall cooperate reasonably in the defense of any action, and CITY shall employ
competent counsel reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney.
b. To the fullest extent permitted by law, DISTRICT shall defend,
indemnify, and hold CITY, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, harmless
JC/7/POL
304-05-25-17AG-E 4 of 6
from any liability for damage or claims of same, including, but not limited to, personal
injury, property damage, and death, which may arise from services or operations of
DISTRICT or DISTRICT’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees under this
Agreement. CITY shall cooperate reasonably in the defense of any action, and
DISTRICT shall employ competent counsel reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney.
8. Applicable Laws and Attorneys’ Fees. This Agreement shall be construed
and enforced pursuant to the laws of the State of California. Should any legal action be
brought by a party for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provision herein, the
prevailing party of such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys ’ fees, court
costs, and other such costs as may be fixed by the court. Reasonable attorneys’ fees of
the City Attorney’s Office, if private counsel is not used, shall be based on comparable
fees of private attorneys practicing in Santa Clara County.
9. Nondiscrimination. DISTRICT shall afford equal employment opportunities
for all persons without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, political affiliation, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or
mental disability, military or veteran status, gender identity or expression, or genetic
information.
10. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in writing and signed by
both parties.
11. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time by
providing six (6) months’ advance written notice to the other party. Should DISTRICT
terminate pursuant to said notice, DISTRICT shall pay CITY for CITY’s services
rendered to the date of cancellation based on percentage of completion of services . In
no event shall said fees exceed the maximum compensation established in this
Agreement. Should CITY terminate pursuant to said notice, DISTRICT shall pay the
cost for removing DISTRICT-owned equipment from CITY’s Emergency
Communications Center.
12. Attachments or Exhibits. Except as expressly referenced herein, no portion
of any terms or conditions included in any attachments or exhibits shall be a part of this
Agreement, and they shall have no force or effect. If any attachments or exhibits to this
Agreement are inconsistent with this Agreement, this Agreement shall control.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding
between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no
representations, agreements, or understandings (whether oral or written) between or
among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully
expressed herein.
JC/7/POL
304-05-25-17AG-E 5 of 6
14. Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the
parties warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement.
15. Waiver. The failure of CITY 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 may have and shall not be deemed a waiver of any
subsequent breach or default in the terms, conditions, and covenants contained herein.
16. Headings. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience
purposes only and shall not affect the terms of this Agreement.
17. Public Records. The parties recognize and acknowledge that CITY is subject
to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 and
following. Public records are subject to disclosure.
18. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid, or unenforceable, the same will either be
reformed to comply with applicable law or stricken if not so conformable, so as not to
affect the validity or enforceability of this Agreement.
19. Notices. Any notice required to be given to DISTRICT shall be deemed to be
duly and properly given if mailed to DISTRICT, postage prepaid, addressed to:
General Manager
Midpeninsula Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
or personally delivered to DISTRICT at such address or at such other addresses as
DISTRICT may designate in writing to CITY.
Any notice required to be given CITY shall be deemed to be duly and
properly given if mailed to CITY, postage prepaid, addressed to:
Police Chief
City of Mountain View
1000 Villa Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
or personally delivered to CITY at Police Department, 1000 Villa Street, or at such other
addresses as CITY may designate in writing to DISTRICT
JC/7/POL
304-05-25-17AG-E 6 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement, dated June 29, 2017 for identification,
between the City of Mountain View and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to
furnish communication services to DISTRICT through utilization of CITY facilities and
staff located at 1000 Villa Street, Mountain View, is executed by CITY and DISTRICT
“CITY”:
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW,
a California charter city and municipal
corporation
By:
City Manager
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Public Safety Support Services Manager
FINANCIAL APPROVAL:
Finance and Administrative
Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
“DISTRICT”:
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT,
an independent special district (Internal
Revenue Code, Section 170(c)(1))
By:
Print Name: Stephen E. Abbors
Title: General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Print Name: Sheryl Schaffner
Title: General Counsel
Taxpayer I.D. Number
R-17-74
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 8
AGENDA ITEM
Structure Demolition at 1150 Sears Ranch Road in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Approve the demolition of an unoccupied residence structure that lacks a foundation and has
other structural issues and an associated shed located at 1150 Sears Ranch Road in La Honda
Creek Open Space Preserve.
SUMMARY
This one-story, 1,000 square foot ranch house residence was rented as part of a kennel operation
that was vacated in June 2016. The structure is not eligible for the California Register of
Historic Resources (CRHR). The house lacks a foundation and the walls and flooring are
severely degraded. It is not feasible to repair the structure. Given these findings and consistent
with Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider in Structures Disposition, the General Manager’s
recommendation is to demolish the building. This Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget includes
sufficient funds for the demolition work.
DISCUSSION
On January 12, 2006, the Board of Directors approved the purchase of the former Driscoll Ranch
property from the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) as an addition to the La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve (OSP) (R-06-07). The purchase included four (4) houses, one of which is
located at 1150 Sears Ranch Road (known as the kennel house). POST had assigned all four (4)
houses to Driscoll Ranches, LLC as part of a 50-year grazing lease prior to the District’s
purchase of the property (R-07-15). The District took over management of these houses on
November 1, 2013, when Driscoll ranches exercised their option to terminate the 50-year grazing
lease.
The kennel house is a two-bedroom, one-bath, one-story, 1,000 square foot house located
adjacent to Sears Ranch Road between the Sears Ranch and Wool Ranch areas in lower La
Honda Creek OSP (Attachment 1). This house, vacated in June 2016, would have been included
in the 2016 demolitions (R-16-22) in lower La Honda Creek OSP, but a structural assessment
still needed to be performed to ascertain whether demolition was the only option or whether the
house could be repaired and rented. The assessment (Attachment 2), performed in September
2016 concluded:
R-17-74 Page 2
1. There does not appear to be any existing foundation. If there were support piers they have
settled into the soil and the house appears to be resting on dirt.
2. The warped floors in the living room and bedrooms are likely due to the foundation
degradation.
3. The horizontal plank wall construction is very old and may not have studs or reinforcing
members.
4. With the exception of the remodeled bathroom, roof, and T1-11 siding, nothing in the house
appears to be up to code. This house would likely be red-tagged by San Mateo County.
Historical Assessment
The kennel house, which was assessed in June 2016 for potential historic significance by
Cogstone (See Attachment 3), is probably 76 years old and dates back to the 1940s. It is located
on what is referred to as the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch. This ranch was owned by Felix and Julio Guerra
(1920s-1960), leased to Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), leased to Henry Cunha from the 1950s to
the 1980s (dairying and cattle raising), and more recently owned by the Driscoll family (cattle
raising). Per the assessment, the kennel house has undergone major alterations and additions
over the years, and due to these significant alternations, is not considered eligible for the
California Register of Historic Resources.
The San Mateo Historical Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) approved the demolition of the
kennel house at their May 17, 2017 Board Meeting. The HRAB requested that photos of the
building be taken pre-demolition. In addition, they are interested to see any interpretive signage
installed at the Driscoll Ranch Area that discusses the agricultural history of the area. District
staff will forward a copy of the interpretive sign planned for the Sears Ranch parking area.
Policy Review
In reviewing the Factors to Consider in Structures Disposition (Board Policy 4.09) (Attachment
4), this house was valuable to the local community as a dog-boarding kennel and as part of a
historical agricultural ranch. However, the dog kennel service is no longer available since the
owner moved away. The house is not historically significant. The structural integrity is very
poor and its location adjacent to the future Harrington Creek Trail in lower La Honda Creek OSP
could affect the public’s enjoyment of open space. If left as is, it would pose a safety hazard to
visitors who may enter the site even if posted closed.
Hazardous Materials
The kennel house was tested for hazardous materials on two separate dates with the results noted
below:
1) Asbestos: SCA Environmental, April 13, 2016 – found in the green and white drywall in
the hallway and bedroom
2) Lead: HMS, February 10, 2017 – lead paint found throughout the living room, kitchen,
and east bedroom.
All hazardous materials would be remediated as part of the demolition. Hazardous materials
monitoring would be included as part of the demolition.
R-17-74 Page 3
Biological Assessments
A pre-assessment for bats revealed a small colony of California Myotis bats in the adjacent
storage shed but not in the kennel house. As these bats are in their reproductive season, the
demolition of this adjacent storage shed will be delayed.
Full biological assessments for small mammals, bats, and birds will be performed pre-demolition
in addition to biomonitoring during the demolition of the kennel house.
Salvageable Materials
Consistent with Board policy, salvageable materials, whether suitable for structural or aesthetic
purposes, will be source segregated on site and either stored for future District reuse or taken by
the contractor and handled consistent with Board policy 4.08, Construction and Demolition
Waste Diversion.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2017-18 budget includes $78,650 in the unoccupied structures disposition budget for the
demolition of the kennel house. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the
recommended action and expenditures.
FY2017-18
Unoccupied Structures Disposition Capital Budget $414,050
Spent–to-Date (as of 6/28/17): $0
Future Encumbrances (El Sereno House Residence Demolition): $94,246
Kennel House Demolition: $78,650
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $241,154
This project is not eligible for Measure AA reimbursement.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
No Committee review has occurred for the above project.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The kennel house is not historically significant under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This demolition approval action is categorically exempt under section 15301, Existing
Facilities, which exempts the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or
private structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of
use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination, including the demolition
of individual small structures.
R-17-74 Page 4
NEXT STEPS
If the Board approves the General Manager’s recommendation, a subsequent Board Agenda Item
for an award of contract with GradeTech, Inc., at this same Board meeting will include an add
alternate item for the demolition of the kennel house and shed. Demolition permits would be
obtained from San Mateo County. Additional contracts would be entered into for third-party
hazardous materials monitors and biological monitors.
Attachments
1. Map of 1150 Sears Ranch Road, La Honda
2.Structural Assessment of 1150 Sears Ranch Road (Guerra-Zanoni)
3.Historical Assessment (Cogstone)
4. Factors to Consider in Structures Disposition
5. Kennel House Photographs
Responsible Department Head:
Brian Malone, Manager Land and Facilities Services
Prepared by:
Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services Department
Graphics prepared by:
Nathan Grieg, GIS Technician
E L C O R T E D E
M A D E R A C R E E K
O P E N S P A C E
P R E S E R V E
L A H O N D A
C R E E K
O P E N S P A C E
P R E S E R V E
R U S S I A N R I D G E
O P E N S P A C E
P R E S E R V E
T H O R N E W O O D
O P E N S P A C E
P R E S E R V E
2 0 0 018001600
1 2 0 0
1200
1 0 0 0
1 8 0 0
1600
8
0
0
600
8 0 0
6 0 0
400
200
600400
4 0 0200
2
2
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
1400
8
0
0
1
8
0
0
1400
600
800
400
600
2000
2000
2000
1 2 0 0
1000
6 0 0
800
8
0
0
6 0 0
2200
600
6 0 0
La H o n d a C r e ek
S a n G r e g o r i o C reek
L angley Creek
B u l l R u n C r e ek
H
a
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Woodruff Creek
S
a
u
s
a
l
C
r
e
e
k
Wee k s C r e e k
B o z z o G u l c hNeils G u l c h
C
o
r
t
e
M
a
d
e
r
a
C
r
e
e
k
Bogess
Creek
Mi n d e g o C r e e k
D a m ia ni C r e e k
Woodham s C r e e k
Coal
Creek
Los
Trancos
Cre ek
Jo n e s G u lc h
H a m m s G u l c h
Ã84
Ã35
L
o
s
Tr
a
n
c
o
s
T
r
ail
T
o
yonTrail
Sprin g R i dge T r a il
H a m ms Gulch Tr a il
M i n d ego Hill Trail
A l p i n e T r a il
Alpi
n
e
R
o
ad
Ridge Trail
R
i
d
geTrail
Trapp
e
r
s
F
ireRo
a
d
A
r
r
o
yo
T
r
ail
R
i
d
g
e
Trail
LostTrai l
A l p i n e R o a d
PortolaRd
C A S t ate
Route
8
4
Los
T
r
a
n
c
o
s
R
d
P age
M
ill
Roa d
O l d L a H onda Rd
CAState
R
o
u
t
e
35SearsRanc
h
R
o
a
d
M i d p en i n su la Re g i on a l
Op e n S p a ce D i st r i c t
(M RO S D)
May 2 0 1 7
1 1 5 0 S e a r s R a n c h R o a d , L a H o n d a C r e e k O p e n S p a c e P r e s e r v e
Path: G:\Projects\La_Honda_Creek\Driscoll\Demolitions\LHC_1150SearsRanch_20170522.mxd
Created By: ngreig
0 10.5
MilesI
MR O S D P re s er ves
Pr iv at e P r o per ty
While the D istrict s trive s to us e the bes t av ailable digital data, these data do not represent a l egal sur vey and are merely a graphic illu stration of geographic features.
Demolished
Demolished
Demolished
1150 Sears
Ranch Road
Retained
Sears Ranch Road
Ot he r P r o te c ted Lan d s
Lan d Tr u s t
Ot he r P u b l ic Ag en c y
1150 S ears Ra nch Roa d
La Hond a Creek
Open S pace Preser ve
Guerra-Zanoni: GZR-4 (1150 Sears Ranch Road) was recently vacated and GZR-7 was requested by
Land and Facilities as a structure to be retained for future tenant uses.
GZR-4 is a circa 1900 house that has successively been remodeled and added onto. The exterior benefits
from a T1-11-like siding and a new composite shingle roof. The interior living room with the wood-stove
accessed off the front door and porch is likely the oldest portion of the building. The horizontal plank
wall construction is a very old building technique (now partially obscured by plaster). Walls of this era
may not have studs or other reinforcing members, i.e. they are constructed similar to a modern wooden
fence. No destructive testing was performed. There does not appear to be a foundation, though there may
be concrete piers in places. There are likely buried grade beams that support the floor. It is likely that
there used to be posts and piers, but they have gradually settled into the grade or soil. The floors are
substantially warped, likely due to the foundation issues. The general slant appears to be SE, though
different rooms and floors areas appear to be sloping in different directions. The walls are relatively
plumb, suggesting that the floor and foundation settlement has not caused significant damage to the
structure. With the exception of the remodeled bathroom, roof, and siding, nothing in the house appears
to be up to code and would likely to be red-tagged by the County. Replacing the foundation, walls,
electric systems, and other appurtenance could be tantamount to a total rebuild. Further destructive testing
could be done to assess the presence of studs. The crawl space is too minimal to be examined without
removing the floor. An engineer could be contracted to detail out the various issues outlined in this memo
and the prior inspection report; however, based on available information, visual inspections, and cursory
analysis, it may not be cost effective to repair the structure. Reconstruction of the structure may bring the
most value to the project.
GZR-7 is an outbuilding approximately 15’ x 20’ dating from the 1930s, possibly earlier. The east side of
the building has the original structural material, while the west wall and the roof (comp shingles) appears
to have been rebuilt recently. The exterior is a plywood material. The roof and western wall are in fair
condition, but the post and pier structure is in poor condition. Dry rot is present on the timber sills that sit
directly on the soils, which may have migrated into the building through foot traffic or storm water. It
will take a significant amount of work to remove the wood and earth to prevent further dry rot. The
structure does not show signs of significant failure. Even though the structure may remain for several
more year, staff has concerns about the user safety and liability to the District. The costs of replacing the
affected materials, constructing new posts and piers, and other structural elements may outweigh the
benefits. Due to the reasons that the structure neither waterproof or animal proof, staff recommends
demolishing the structure and replacing it with a smaller storage structure. The exception to the
recommendation would be if the structure were to be used for the purpose of keeping livestock or other
animals (i.e. not maintained or occupied by people).
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office (714) 974-8300
Field Offices
San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Oakland
cogstone.com
Toll free 888-333-3212
Federal Certifications 8(a), SDB, EDWOSB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE
Architectural Survey and Evaluation Report for
Driscoll Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo County,
California
Final
Prepared for:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Authors:
Lynn Furnis
Principal Architectural Historian:
Lynn Furnis
Registered Professional Archaeologist
June 2016
APN Numbers: 078-270-030; 078-290-010; 078-290-030, and 082-170-040
Cogstone Project Number: 3862
Type of Study: Architectural Survey and Evaluation
Sites: Lower Folger Ranch, Upper Folger Ranch, Guerra-Zanoni Ranch, Ray Ranch, Wool Ranch
USGS Quadrangle: La Honda, Calif.
Total Area: Approximately 3649 acres
Fieldwork Dates: April 20, 21, 22, 2016
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... V
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
PURPOSE OF STUDY ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................................ 4
STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4
METHODS .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
RECORDS SEARCH ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
OTHER SOURCES CONSULTED ............................................................................................................................................ 7
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................. 8
HISTORIC OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 9
EARLY HISTORY OF THE LA HONDA REGION ......................................................................................................................... 9
LA HONDA HISTORY, SAN MATEO COUNTY ....................................................................................................................... 11
Lumber and Shingle Mills ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Oil Production in San Mateo County .................................................................................................................... 14
SITE SPECIFIC HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................... 16
The Ray Ranch ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Guerra-Zanoni Ranch ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Wool Ranch .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Folger Ranches ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 39
RAY RANCH (APN NO.078-290-030) ............................................................................................................................ 39
RR-2: Large Storage Shed or Workshop ............................................................................................................... 42
RR-5: Large Barn .................................................................................................................................................. 44
RR-6: Ranch House ............................................................................................................................................... 44
RR-7: Shed or Workshop ...................................................................................................................................... 47
RR-8: Bunkhouse .................................................................................................................................................. 48
GUERRA-ZANONI RANCH (APN NO. 078-290-010 AND 078-270-030) .............................................................................. 51
GZR-1: Small Barn ................................................................................................................................................ 51
GZR-4: Ranch House ............................................................................................................................................ 54
GZR-5: Shed or Workshop .................................................................................................................................... 55
GZR-6: Cabin ........................................................................................................................................................ 56
GZR-7: Storage Shed ............................................................................................................................................ 57
WOOL RANCH (APN NO. 078-270-030) ........................................................................................................................ 58
WR-1: Barn or Workshop ..................................................................................................................................... 58
WR-2: Ranch House ............................................................................................................................................. 58
WR-3: Cottage ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
WR-4: Upper Barn ................................................................................................................................................ 64
FOLGER RANCH (APN NO. 082-170-040) ...................................................................................................................... 65
Upper Folger Ranch ............................................................................................................................................. 65
UFR-1: Animal Shelter .......................................................................................................................................... 65
UFR-2: Bunkhouse or Hunting Cabin .................................................................................................................... 67
UFR-3: Large, collapsed barn ............................................................................................................................... 69
Lower Folger Ranch ............................................................................................................................................. 71
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
ii
LFR-1: Ranch house .............................................................................................................................................. 71
LFR-2: Small barn ................................................................................................................................................. 71
LFR-3: Workshop/Shed ........................................................................................................................................ 74
LFR-4: Collapsed barn down the road .................................................................................................................. 75
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY .......................................................................................................................... 77
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION: ........................................................................................................................................... 77
Ray Ranch ............................................................................................................................................................ 78
Guerra-Zanoni Ranch ........................................................................................................................................... 83
Wool Ranch .......................................................................................................................................................... 87
Folger Ranch ........................................................................................................................................................ 91
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 98
REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................................................... 99
APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX B. SOURCES CONSULTED ................................................................................................................... 111
APPENDIX C. ADDENDUM .................................................................................................................................. 114
APPENDIX D. SITE FORMS .................................................................................................................................. 123
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY ......................................................................................................................................... 2
FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 3. MEXICAN LAND GRANT RANCHO SAN GREGORIO ...................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 5. LOCATION OF OIL WELLS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (BASED ON HECTOR 1986) ........................................ 16
FIGURE 6. PROJECT AREA AS SHOWN ON THE 1868 OFFICIAL MAP OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ...................................... 18
FIGURE 7. AREA AS SHOWN ON THE 1877 OFFICIAL MAP OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ..................................................... 19
FIGURE 8. PROJECT AREA AS SHOWN ON THE 1894 OFFICIAL MAP OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ...................................... 20
FIGURE 9. PROJECT AREA AS SHOWN ON THE 1909 OFFICIAL MAP OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ...................................... 21
FIGURE 10. 1902 MAP SHOWING RANCHES AND ROADS ................................................................................................ 23
FIGURE 11. 1940 MAP SHOWING RANCHES AND ROADS ................................................................................................ 24
FIGURE 12. 1953 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF RAY RANCH .............................................................................................. 25
FIGURE 13. 1980 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF RAY RANCH ............................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 14. 1953 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GUERRA-ZANONI RANCH ................................................................... 29
FIGURE 15. 1953 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WOOL RANCH ..................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 16. 1956 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF WOOL RANCH, WITH POSSIBLE OIL EXPLORATION GRIDS ........................... 31
FIGURE 17. 1960 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF WOOL RANCH ............................................................................................ 32
FIGURE 18. 1953 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF UPPER FOLGER RANCH .............................................................................. 35
FIGURE 19. 1960 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF UPPER FOLGER RANCH .............................................................................. 36
FIGURE 20. 1953 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF LOWER FOLGER RANCH AND SOUTH BARN ................................................ 37
FIGURE 21. 1968 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING LOWER AND UPPER FOLGER RANCHES ............................................ 38
FIGURE 22. OVERVIEW OF RAY’S RANCH, VIEW TO WEST-NORTHWEST ....................................................................... 39
FIGURE 23. CATTLE FEEDING AND HAY BARN, RR-1, SOUTH ELEVATION ..................................................................... 40
FIGURE 24. CIRCULAR AND RECTANGULAR CORRALS, RR-3 AND RR-4, VIEW NORTH ................................................. 40
FIGURE 25. SKETCH MAP OF RAY’S RANCH STRUCTURES AS OF 2016 .......................................................................... 41
FIGURE 26. RR-2, LARGE SHED OR WORKSHOP, NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS ......................................................... 43
FIGURE 27. RR-2, LARGE SHED OR WORKSHOP, WEST AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS ......................................................... 43
FIGURE 28. RR-5, LARGE BARN, WEST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS................................................................................. 45
FIGURE 29. RR-5, LARGE BARN, EAST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS ................................................................................. 46
FIGURE 30. RR-6, RANCH HOUSE, EAST ELEVATION ..................................................................................................... 46
FIGURE 31. RR-6, RANCH HOUSE, WEST ELEVATION .................................................................................................... 47
FIGURE 32. RR-7, SHED OR WORKSHOP, EAST ELEVATION .......................................................................................... 48
FIGURE 33. RR-7, SHED OR WORKSHOP, NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS .................................................................... 49
FIGURE 34. RR-7, SHED OR WORKSHOP, CLOSE -UP OF WEST ELEVATION DAMAGE ...................................................... 49
FIGURE 35. RR-8, POSSIBLE BUNKHOUSE, EAST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS ................................................................... 50
FIGURE 36. RR-8, POSSIBLE BUNKHOUSE, NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS...………………………………………....52
FIGURE 37. SKETCH MAP OF GUERRA-ZANONI RANCH STRUCTURES IN 2016 .............................................................. 52
FIGURE 38. GUERRA-ZANONI RANCH OVERVIEW, VIEW TO SOUTHWEST ...................................................................... 53
FIGURE 40. GZR-1, SMALL BARN, SOUTH ELEVATION .................................................................................................. 54
FIGURE 41. GZR-4, RANCH HOUSE, EAST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS ............................................................................. 55
FIGURE 42. GZR-4, RANCH HOUSE, WEST ELEVATION .................................................................................................. 56
FIGURE 43. GZR-5, SHED, EAST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS ........................................................................................... 56
FIGURE 44. GZR-6, SMALL CABIN, SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS ............................................................................... 57
FIGURE 45. GZR-7, STORAGE SHED, EAST ELEVATION ................................................................................................. 58
FIGURE 46. SKETCH MAP OF WOOL RANCH STRUCTURES, AS OF 2016 ........................................................................ 60
FIGURE 48. WR-2, RANCH HOUSE, NORTHWEST ELEVATION ........................................................................................ 61
FIGURE 49. WR-2, RANCH HOUSE AND POOL, REAR ELEVATION ................................................................................... 62
FIGURE 50. WR-2, RANCH HOUSE ADDITIONS, ON SOUTHWEST ELEVATION ................................................................. 63
FIGURE 51. WR-3, COTTAGE, NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST ELEVATIONS ................................................................... 64
FIGURE 52. WR-4, LARGE BARN, NORTHEAST ELEVATION ........................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 53. SKETCH MAP OF UPPER FOLGER RANCH STRUCTURES AS OF 2016 ............................................................ 66
FIGURE 55. UFR-2, CABIN OR RANCH HOUSE, NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS .............................................................. 68
FIGURE 56. UFR-2, BUNK HOUSE OR HUNTING CABIN, FRONT ADDITION DETAIL ......................................................... 69
FIGURE 57. UFR-3, COLLAPSED BARN, NORTH ELEVATION .......................................................................................... 70
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
iv
FIGURE 58. UFR-4, SITTNER CATTLE OILER, VIEW TO EAST ......................................................................................... 70
FIGURE 59. SKETCH MAP OF THE LOWER FOLGER RANCH STRUCTURES AS OF 2016 .................................................... 72
FIGURE 60. LFR-1, RANCH HOUSE, EAST ELEVATION ................................................................................................... 73
FIGURE 61. LFR-1, RANCH HOUSE, NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS ............................................................................. 73
FIGURE 62. LFR-2, BARN, WEST AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS ........................................................................................... 74
FIGURE 63. LFR-3, WORKSHOP/SHED, EAST ELEVATION .............................................................................................. 75
FIGURE 64. LFR-4, COLLAPSED HAY BARN................................................................................................................... 76
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. SALVADOR CASTRO LAND GRANT PROPERTY WITHIN OR NEAR DRISCOLL RANCH ..................................... 10
TABLE 2. EVALUATION & SUMMARY OF CRHR ELIGIBILITY EVALUATIONS ............................................................... 77
TABLE 3. APPENDIX B-1: DETAILED RESEARCH RESULTS- LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS VISITED ................................ 112
TABLE 4. APPENDIX B-2: DETAILED CONTACT AND RESEARCH RESULTS- PEOPLE CONTACTED ............................... 113
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to document and evaluate historic-age buildings and structures
located at four ranches (Ray or Sears Ranch, Guerra-Zanoni Ranch, Wool Ranch, and the Folger
Ranch) that until recently comprised the Driscoll Ranch. The property now belongs to and is
managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD). In accordance with
Article 5, §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, 21
buildings and structures were evaluated for historic significance and for potential eligibility for
listing on the California Register of Historic Places. The MROSD is considering demolition of
two houses and six barns and outbuildings within the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
(Preserve). Evaluation of the buildings for historic significance is necessary before destructive
action is planned or taken.
The Driscoll Ranch portion of the Preserve is a 3649.65 acre recent addition to the Preserve,
situated between La Honda Creek on the east, Bogess Creek on the west, and between La Honda
Road (State Highway 84) on the south, and Bear Gulch Road on the north. It is in a rural area, in
steep terrain within the Coast Range, moderately wooded with oaks, redwood trees, and pines
and open, grassy areas between drainages. The proposed Project entails possible demolition of
eight historic-age buildings and structures within Driscoll Ranch, as part of the overall
management plan for the Preserve. Currently, the four ranch sub-areas within the Project Area
include 20 standing buildings and structures and four collapsed structures, for a total of 24
structures. Two ranch complexes (Guerra-Zanoni Ranch and Lower Folger Ranch) will continue
to be occupied by caretakers and others within the Preserve, but these were also recorded and
evaluated. The existing ranches are located on or close to the north-south trending Sears Ranch
Road along the east portion of Driscoll Ranch, as well as along the east-west Wool Ranch Road
across the north part of the Ranch, and along an unnamed north-south road through the western
portion of the property.
The architectural survey of the Project Area was completed from April 20-April 22, 2016,
covering 26 standing and collapsed structures, 21 of which are historic (45 years old or more) in
age and 5 were modern. None of the 21 historic-age structures are recommended as eligible for
listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The buildings and structures
of historic age are not eligible for listing because none of them can be shown to have been
associated with important events or persons in the broad patterns of history, at national, state, or
local levels, as required for criteria A and B of the CRHR. In addition, none of the buildings
appear to be exceptional examples of particular architectural styles, nor the work of master
craftsmen, as required for criterion C of the CRHR. Criterion D is more appropriate for
archaeological resources than for built environment resources and was not, therefore, applied to
the existing structures within the subject property. No further assessments are recommended.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to document and evaluate historic-age buildings and structures
located at four ranches (Ray or Sears Ranch, Guerra-Zanoni Ranch, Wool Ranch, and the Folger
Ranch) that until recently comprised the Driscoll Ranch (Figure 1). The property now belongs to
and is managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD). In accordance
with Article 5, §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, 21
buildings and structures have been evaluated for historic significance and for potential eligibility
for listing on the California Register of Historic Places. The MROSD is considering demolition
of two houses and six barns and outbuildings within the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
(Preserve). Evaluation of the buildings for historic significance is necessary before destructive
action is planned or taken.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located within the partially-sectioned Township 7 S and Range 4W (Mount Diablo
Base Meridian) of the La Honda, Calif. 7.5-minute series USGS topographic map (Figure 2). It
covers numerous sections of land within the township. The Driscoll Ranch portion of the
Preserve is a 3,682-acre recent addition (2005) to the Preserve, a working ranch situated between
La Honda Creek on the east, Bogess Creek on the west, and between La Honda Road (State
Highway 84) on the south, and Bear Gulch Road on the north. It is in a rural area adjacent to the
small community of La Honda, in steep terrain within the Coast Range, moderately wooded with
oaks, redwood trees, and pines and open, grassy areas between drainages. The proposed Project
entails possible demolition of eight historic-age buildings and structures within Driscoll Ranch,
as part of the overall management plan for the Preserve. Currently, the four ranch sub-areas
within the Project Area include 21 standing buildings and structures and four collapsed
structures, for a total of 24 structures.
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Cogstone Resource Management Inc. (Cogstone) conducted the architectural study reported
herein. Desiree R. Martinez served as Project Manager and supervised all work. Martinez is a
qualified archaeologist with over 20 years of experience in archaeological fieldwork, research,
and curation and meets the Secretary of Interior professional qualifications standards for
archaeology. She has an M.A. in Anthropology from Harvard University. Lynn Furnis was the
Principal Architectural Historian for the Project, conducted the architectural survey, conducted
background research and authored of the report. Lynn Furnis holds an M.A. in Anthropology
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
2
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
from the University of Nevada, Reno and has 13 years of experience in California and 25 years
in Nevada. Lynn Furnis recorded and evaluated the standing structures within the Project Area.
Samantha Schell conducted background research and oral history of Driscoll Ranch community
members. Schell holds a B.A. in Anthropology (Physical) from the University of California,
Berkeley and possesses 20 years of experience in California archaeology. Tim Spillane
performed the records search at Sonoma State University. Spillane has an M.A. in Literature and
Material Culture from Roehampton University in London and a dual B.A. in Anthropology and
English Literature from San Francisco State University. Andre Simmons and Sarah Nava
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
3
Figure 2. Project Location
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
4
prepared the maps. Simmons has a B.A. in Anthropology and History, an M.A. in
Anthropology, and a certificate in Global Information Systems (GIS) from California State
University (CSU), Fullerton. Sarah Nava has a B. A. in Anthropology from California State,
Long Beach, as well as a GIS certificate from Southwestern Community College. Short resumes
of staff are provided (see Appendix A).
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Cultural resources management work conducted as part of the Driscoll Ranch Project must
comply with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (California 2005), and any potential historic and
prehistoric resources that might exist within the proposed Project Area of Potential Effect (area)
would have to be evaluated under these guidelines. Enacted in 1971, CEQA and the guidelines
direct lead agencies to determine whether an archaeological site is a “historically significant”
cultural resource. The term "historical resources" shall include the following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical
Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR) (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et
seq.).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an
historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the
Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally
significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a
lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the
architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an
historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be
considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
5
the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR,
Section 4852) including the following:
(A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
(C) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative
individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(D) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing
in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to
Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical
resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public
Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code
§5020.1(j) or §5024.1 (CEQA 15064.5).
In addition to having significance, cultural resources must have integrity for the period of
significance under consideration. The period of significance is the date or time span within
which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions.
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the
survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of
significance. Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical,
cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic
character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for
their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have
sufficient integrity for the CRHR, if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield
significant scientific or historical information or specific data.
The term “unique archaeological resource” has the following meaning under CEQA:
An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly
demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there
is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
6
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research
questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or
the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric
or historical event or person [Public Resources Code §21083.2(g)].
A Project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource or unique archaeological resource is a Project that may have a significant
effect on the environment. Effects on cultural properties that qualify as historical resources or
unique archaeological resources can be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
The State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) administers the California Register
program. As a recipient of federal funding, the OHP meets the requirements of the NHPA with a
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) who enforces a designation and protection process,
has a qualified historic preservation review commission, maintains a system for surveys and
inventories, and provides for adequate public participation in its activities. As the recipient of
federal funds that require pass-through funding to local governments, the OHP administers the
Certified Local Government program for the State of California. The OHP also administers the
California Register of Historical Landmarks and California Points of Local Historical Interest
programs.
California Historical Landmarks. California Historical Landmarks are buildings, structures,
sites, or places that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at
least one of the criteria listed below. The resource also must be approved for designation by the
County Board of Supervisors or the City/Town Council in whose jurisdiction it is located, such
as the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim, respectively. The resource must also be
recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission and be officially designated by the
Director of California State Parks and Recreation.
To be eligible for designation as a California State Landmark, a resource must meet at least one
of the following criteria:
1) Be the first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large
geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California);
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
7
2) Be associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the
history of California; or
3) Be a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural
movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best
surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.
California Points of Historical Interest. California Points of Historical Interest are sites,
buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have
anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical,
religious, experimental, or other value. To be eligible for designation as a California Point of
Historical Interest, a resource must meet at least one of the criteria listed above for California
Historical Landmarks.
Points of Historical Interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State
Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the CRHR. No historical resource may be
designated as both a State Historical Landmark and a California Point of Historical Interest.
METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
On April 19, 2016, Cogstone archaeologist Tim Spillane conducted a literature search at the
Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park to determine
if any built environment resources within the Project Area had been previously recorded. No
record of any previously recorded built environment sites was found.
OTHER SOURCES CONSULTED
A number of sources were consulted to research the history of the ranch properties, owners,
events, and uses of the Driscoll Ranch properties over time (for additional information see
Appendices B and C). These include the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the
online General Land Office patent records maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
the Bancroft Library and the Earth, Science, and Maps Library both at the University of
California, Berkeley (Table Appendix B-1).
The California Historical Landmarks list was consulted for San Mateo County and three sites
were identified as being within the vicinity. The closest landmark is just outside the Project Area
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
8
near its southeast entrance, at La Honda. This is California Historical Landmark No. 343 – the
Old Store at La Honda (OHP Landmarks 2016). The store was constructed in 1861-62 by John
L. Sears when he moved to this undeveloped location in the redwoods and named the place La
Honda. The building no longer stands, having been torn down sometime prior to 2006 to make
way for a new building (G. Bordi 2006). The second area landmark is California Historical
Landmark No. 26, a Portola Expedition Camp from October 24, 1769, located on San Gregorio
Creek, on Highway 101 just south of its intersection with State Highway 84. The Portola
Expedition rested at a Native American village here for three days. This landmark is located
approximately 7 miles west of the Project Area. The third landmark is No. 474 – site of the
Former Village of Searsville, located approximately 8 miles north of Driscoll Ranch, at
Woodside. John Sears, of La Honda fame, first settled the village of Searsville in 1854. It
functioned as a lumberman’s village, with a hotel, school, store, blacksmith shop, and houses.
Other online resources include U. S. Census records for 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910,
1920, 1930, and 1940 and the California Great Register of Voters, obtained through
Ancestry.com, and many local articles from the La Honda Voice. The MROSD also provided a
number of useful and pertinent reports and documents to Cogstone.
Lastly, e-mails, and phone calls were made with local residents or past residents who have
historical or inherited knowledge about the community of La Honda and the families that lived
and worked there (Table Appendix B-2).
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY
April 20 through April 22, 2016, Lynn Furnis visited the sites and conducted an architectural
survey of the 24 extant buildings and structures, including the three collapsed barns associated
with the ranches. Her fieldwork began with a driving tour of the Project Area ranches provided
by Aaron Hebert of the MROSD on April 20, 2016. Each building or structure was
photographed using a Fuji FinePix E900 digital camera and most were located using a Trimble
Geoexplorer 6000 series (Geo XH). All buildings or structures considered to be 45 years or older
were recorded and have been evaluated, and are considered of historic age for purposes of this
study. The built environment resources have been evaluated using the criteria put forth for the
California Historic Resources Register (CRHR). Descriptions of the buildings were recorded on
California Department of Recreation (DPR) Series 523 Forms (Appendix D).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
9
HISTORIC OVERVIEW
EARLY HISTORY OF THE LA HONDA REGION
Juan Cabrillo was the first European to sail along the coast of California in 1542 and was
followed in 1602 by Sebastian Vizcaino (Bean and Rawls 1993). In 1769, the Portola
Expedition traveled along the Pacific coastline from La Paz, in Baja California, to San Diego and
on to San Francisco in Alta California (Marinacci and Marinacci 1980:9, 44-45, 55). Don
Gaspar de Portola was the Spanish commander of California colonization. His expedition
covered 1,000 miles over unknown land within a six-month period. Their final destination was
supposed to be Monterey Bay, where a presidio was to be established. Having missed this bay,
however, they continued north, hoping to find another suitable bay for settlement and shipping.
Toward the end of this northward journey, Portola’s party passed within 7 miles to the west of
the Driscoll Ranch property, camping for a few days in late October near the Highway 101 and
State Highway 84 intersection on their last leg to San Francisco.
Between 1769 and 1822 the Spanish colonized California and established missions, presidios and
pueblos (Bean and Rawls 1993). Ranchos in California numbered over 500 by 1846, all but
approximately 30 of which resulted from land grants (Bean and Rawls 1993; Robinson 1948).
During the Mexican period, present-day La Honda and surroundings were part of the Rancho
San Gregorio, which was four square leagues (17,783 acres) in size, granted to Don Antonio
Buelna on May 2, 1839 (Cloud 1928:1). At the same time, Buelna received a second land grant
in Santa Clara County, known as Rancho San Francisquito (Revolvy 2016). Buelna wanted the
San Gregorio property primarily for pasturage. In order to connect his two ranchos, Buelna
established a road between the two which ran over the hills and is today the path of La Honda
Road and Old La Honda Road. Following Buelna’s death in 1846 and his widow’s remarriage,
Maria Concepcion Valencia de Rodriquez sold one square league of the original four leagues of
Rancho San Gregorio to Salvador Castro in 1849.
In 1852, Salvador Castro filed a claim for this property with the Land Commission once
California became part of the United States. Castro was confirmed in 1856 as the owner
(Revolvy 2016). He patented the 4,439 acres in his possession in 1861 (Table 1). Most titles of
land since that time have come from Castro. Driscoll Ranch property lies within the original
boundaries of Rancho San Gregorio (Figure 3).
Beginning in 1847, the manufacture of lumber and wood shingles became a prime industry in
what would soon become San Mateo County, with two saw mills in operation (Alley 1883:144).
This occurred because the Coast Range was thick with redwood trees. With the advent of the
1849 gold rush in the California Sierra Nevada foothills, the pace quickened dramatically and by
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
10
1853, 15 mills were operating within 5 miles of Woodside, with a capacity to produce 24 million
feet of lumber per year. From the 1850s to the 1890s, logging of the redwoods proceeded at a
rapid pace until the old stand timber was virtually gone.
Table 1. Salvador Castro Land Grant Property Within or near Driscoll Ranch
Name Date Section Township Range
Salvador Castro 1861
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14,
15, 16, 17, 20, 21 7S 4W
32, 33 6S 4W
Figure 3. Mexican Land Grant Rancho San Gregorio
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
11
LA HONDA HISTORY, SAN MATEO COUNTY
According to California Historical Landmarks information for Landmark Number 343, La Honda
was named by John L. Sears, when he began to develop this area as a town in 1861. His first
construction was a store and trading post. According to a + h llc researchers (a + h llc 2015:3),
John’s son – William H. Sears – and Andrew Rice Sausman built the store in the early 1870s.
Perhaps there were two stores constructed at La Honda, the first one by John L. Sears, then a
later one built by his son. In any case, the outlaw brothers from Missouri – Cole, Bob, and Jim
Younger – and their cousin John Jarret are said to have helped Sears build his store (Cady 1948).
This had to have been in the early 1870s, as the Youngers and Jarret did not leave Missouri until
after the end of the Civil War, in the mid-1860s. At that time, only Cole Younger, John Jarret,
and a group of friends came west to La Honda to hide out from the law. Cole and John stayed at
the Ray Ranch at this time, doing work at the ranch, including helping to enlarge the size of the
ranch house.
Then Cole and John returned to Missouri in order to collect Cole’s family together, whom he had
left with relatives before he hurriedly left for the west. Cole Younger found, upon his return to
Missouri, that his mother had passed away and that his brothers Jim and Bob had been robbing
banks with the Jesse James gang and were in hiding (Cady 1948). So he decided to return to La
Honda, bringing his brothers, his sister, and John Jarret with him. It was at this time that John L.
Sears was starting construction of a store and clearing space for a hotel in La Honda. The
Youngers went by the last name of Hardin while there and Sears hired them to assist in the
building of the store. Following completion of the store, which was at harvest time, the
Youngers and John Jarret worked again at the Ray Ranch. This must have been in the early
1870s. Eventually, they all left the area, the Youngers to join the James gang in Minnesota for
their last bank robbery.
According to Paisley Kirkpatrick, based on personal accounts of Oscar John and Walter Ray
obtained by Roscoe Wyatt, both of whom had seen Cole Younger and John Jarret when they
were in La Honda, Cole Younger and Jarret posed as cousins of Walter Ray and Oscar John at
the time (Kirkpatrick 2008). Oscar John and his stepfather met them as they rode onto the
lakeside Ray Ranch upon their first visit to the area. Oscar was 10 years old at the time.
According to a recent telephone conversation with Judy Wilson, who presently lives on the
nearby Sears Ranch, Cole Younger helped build the ranch house that she lives in, as well as at
least one other within MROSD land that was recently demolished (Judy Wilson, personal
communication, April 29, 2016).
The La Honda community developed during the 1870s, with sufficient population for a post
office, established in 1873, and Sears’ Hotel La Honda in 1878 (a + h llc 2015). The commercial
center, such as it was, also included a livery stable and a blacksmith shop (M. Bordi 2006).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
12
From the 1860s through the 1890s, the area was extensively logged for its thick redwood tree
stands. The La Honda store was a central focus for the loggers, for those who ran the saw mills
in the area and for the ranchers and dairymen who worked the clearings between the stands of
redwoods (M. Bordi 2006). Until automobiles arrived, the town was supplied with freight and
transportation services by wagon, provided by the Al Weatherby Fast Freight Wagon and its four
to six mules. From 1904 to the 1920s, the La Honda Store was owned and operated by Charles
and Frank Cavalli. Their version of the store encompassed a general store, a saloon, and a post
office (M. Bordi 2006). By 1928, the store was managed by Mr. and Mrs. Archie Woodhams
(Cloud 1928:2). At some point after 1928, the hotel and livery burned down, to be replaced by a
second hotel which also burned.
Over the years, Salvador Castro sold off portions of his land to loggers, mill owners, and to
ranchers, farmers, and dairymen. American and immigrant land owners around La Honda as of
1870 included John L. Sears, Captain George Watkins, James W. Bell, William Hughes, a Mr.
Weeks, Richard T. Ray, Maurice Woodhams, William Armstrong, and others.
Lumber and Shingle Mills
The La Honda area was well known for its timber and harvesting and milling in the area was
conducted early on. Schwind (2014) divides timber harvesting into five periods: Period I is pre-
1842 , Period II (1842-1875), Period III (1875 – 1905), Period IV (1905 – 1945), Period V (1945
to Present) . Period I is pre-1842 and prior to European settlement of the area with trees used by
the Native American communities in the area. The beginning of Period II (1842-1875) saw the
use of water powered saw mills, located near streams and rivers. When the area was affected by
drought, the mills were shut down during the winter. The drought also affected tree growth
resulting in the logging of smaller trees. With the onset of the Gold Rush during this time, many
of the fallers left for the Sierra Nevada. The pressure for wood supplies resulted in a new wave
of timber men. The new lumber mills were steam powered, not needing to be located near a
running stream, and operated year round. Camps grew up around the mills and support crew
came, i.e. cooks, sawyers and fallers. Oxen were introduced to pull the logs along steep skid
trails. It was during this time that the Weeks family, pioneers of La Honda, operated several
lumber and shingle mills along the upper portion of La Honda Creek. The Harrington Mill,
which is located in the project area, was founded during this period in 1861 along Harrington
Creek (Figure 4).
Most of the redwoods were harvested during Period III (1875 – 1905) which was the high point
of timber cutting in the mountains. Small mill partnerships were purchased by large companies.
The Dolbeer steam donkey, a more efficient technology, was invented in 1881 and took over the
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
13
Figure 4. Location of lumber mills within the project area (based on Foss 1941)
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
14
work of the oxen. As the industry grew, so did the number and types of workers. In 1898, Bert
Weeks purchased some used equipment from Hanson (Charles Hanson of the Page Mills) and
erected a mill at the base of Woodruff creek. The redwood logs were dragged down to the mill
by bull-whackers, Ed Sallwager and Walter Ray and their team of oxen. Teamsters Ed George
and William Douglass hauled the cut lumber over the hill to Redwood City. Three years later, the
mill equipment was moved uphill to a site on La Honda Creek, where it operated from 1901 to
1906.
Aside from a burst of lumber needs after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the demand for
lumber fell during Period IV (1905 – 1945). The onset of the Depression during this time period
significantly impacted the declining industry. Mill owner Irvin Bloomquist described the
situation, “There was no demand for lumber. Mills shut down or burned down and weren’t
rebuilt. The land wasn’t good for anything after the timber was cut” (Schwind 2014:23). The
land couldn’t be used for other industries because the soil erosion that resulted from the use of
skid trails the devastation from accidental fires from the use of steam technology, slash fires, and
the removal of the trees. The 1920s saw another advancement in technology when the industry
replaced the steam donkeys with diesel engines.
The last period, Period V (1945 to Present), saw lots of changes in the methods and technology
used throughout the industry. Gasoline powered saws made timbering more efficient. With large
tractors and trucks commercially available after WWII, roads were improved allowing greater
access to remote locations made it easy to conduct for bark stripping. Easier access made way for
larger corporations to move in. It was during this period that stricter regulations were
implemented, such as the Forest Practice Act of 1945 which required the abandonment of
traditional clear cutting method and the design of roads to minimize erosion and protect creek
beds.
Oil Production in San Mateo County
Under the project area and a majority of San Mateo County are large oil fields that were accessed
as early as the 1860s. During this time camphene, a colorless, crystalline, water-insoluble
substance, widely used as an illuminate was produced from crude oil. The majority of the
camphene consumed in San Francisco came from oil found in surface outcroppings along
Purisima Creek. Producers dug pits, allowed it to fill with oil then collected it. In La Honda,
Charles Morrel, a druggist, heard lumbermen discussing this oil seepage and in 1895 received
title to the sites and sold the oil (Bedesem 1979:1).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
15
Until the late 1930s, most of the oil was extracted by small local companies such as Purisima Oil
Co. and the La Honda Oil Field Association in addition to individuals. Often the well would be
built on top of the location of the natural oozing oil. “If it was of high enough quality, a small
pump would be placed on a roadside well head and passing motorists could fill up!” (Bedesem
1979:2). Most of the oil was used for fishing boats or for consumption on the coast. The San
Mateo County oil is of very high quality and is very light with little or no processing needed. In
fact, some older engines could run on it just as it came out of the ground (Bedesem 1979:8).
By 1938, local companies had been successful enough that they attractedithe attention of larger
Los Angeles-based companies. La Brea Oil Company moved in in 1940 and signed 20 year
leases on 4,000 acres from Frank Alves, John Sousa, and Lee Hall on the coast and C. Ross of
Redwood City. The Wilshire Oil Company leased the Purisima Canyon area where high quality
oil was already being extracted.
On June 10, 1950, Jergan Oil Company brought the first complete oil rig into La Honda. The
new equipment dug to 8,000 feet in depth, far surpassing the 200 foot wells that the individuals
and local companies could dig. The new technology needed large crews; however there wasn’t
enough housing in the area to accommodate them. By July 31, 1950, Jergan Oil abandoned the
hole (Bedesem 1979:3). Between 1950 and 1955, Texaco, Jergan, Conoco, Richfield, Union,
Standard, Humble (Texas), Reef, and Western Gulf Oil companies spent over two million dollars
to pump oil, with little success. Figure 5 shows the location of oil wells within the project area.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
16
Figure 5. Location of oil wells within the project area (Based on Hector 1986)
SITE SPECIFIC HISTORY
Four ranches are located within the Driscoll Ranch Project Area (see Figure 2). These are,
ordered within a counterclockwise direction, beginning in the eastern part of the property, the
Ray Ranch, the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch, the Wool Ranch, and the Folger Ranch. The latter ranch
includes two parts – the Upper and Lower ranches. Today, all four are connected by a loop road
system, so that one may access each ranch without leaving the large property. This was not
always the case.
The stretch of road between the Wool Ranch and the Folger Ranch has not always existed, and
even today is a steep, narrow, hazardous dirt road. Access from La Honda Road on the east and
southwest ends of the Driscoll Ranch property remain the most efficient ways in and out of the
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
17
four ranches. Between the 1970s and the 1990s, the Driscoll family acquired the four ranches
and combined them into one – the Driscoll Ranch. This former ranch is the property that has
now become part of the La Honda Open Space Preserve.
For most of their existence, the historic ranches on the property have been divided by two large
property lines, each under different ownership. The Ray and Guerra-Zanoni ranches have
similar ownership and use histories and lie along the Sears Ranch Road. The Folger Ranch
complexes have always been under ownership other than the ranches to the east, and so have
been connected by their spatial closeness, as well as by ownership. The Wool Ranch has had a
different ownership history than the others, and its early history in particular is not well known.
Access to it is difficult, but is most often reached by driving from the Sears Ranch Road west
onto what was once called the Seale Road, across Harrington Creek, and up a steep and winding
dirt road to the ranch.
Each ranch history is described in the following text.
The Ray Ranch
The Ray Ranch is situated in the north-central portion of Section 15, in Township 7S, Range 4W.
The property first belonged to Salvador Castro, as part of the Rancho San Gregorio, as
previously noted (see Figure 3). The property as shown on the 1868 and 1877 Official Maps of
San Mateo County belonged to the “Estate of Burns John” (Figures 6 & 7). John is mentioned by
others as being one of the early pioneering families at La Honda (a + h llc 2015:4). John
purchased property with Michael Dubbs in 1856 (Foss 1941:6). Dubbs retained the north half of
the 1412.54 acres and Burns John too the south half, in which parcel the Ray Ranch stands. John
became County Treasurer of San Mateo County, which had just been formed, but died later the
same year (1859), leaving his wife and four children. Mrs. John then married their ranch hand –
Richard T. Ray – and the family remained at the ranch until 1880 (Foss 1941:6). The couple
produced six more children.
In 1878, the Illustrated History of San Mateo County presented one illustration of the R. T. Ray
“Lake Ranch” and farm, prominently situated east of Ray’s Peak (Moore and DePue 1878). This
is thought to be the same site as the current Ray Ranch, sometimes referred to as the Sears
Ranch, which is a completely different place (Aaron Hebert, personal communication, April 20,
2016). Richard T. Ray appears on the 1868 Official Map of San Mateo County as a property
owner for this parcel (Easton 1868; Cloud 1877; Bromfield 1894; Neuman 1909; Kneese 1927).
Local accounts claim that in the late 1860s and early 1870s, Cole Younger and his brothers, a
sister, and a cousin hid out at the Ray Ranch on two different occasions after fleeing Missouri as
wanted men (Cady 1948; Kirkpatrick 2008). They assisted in building a second story onto the
ranch house, which is not the ranch house that currently stands on the site. The Younger
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
18
Figure 6. Project Area as shown on the 1868 Official Map of San Mateo County
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
19
Figure 7. Area as shown on the 1877 Official Map of San Mateo County
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
20
Figure 8. Project Area as shown on the 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
21
Figure 9. Project Area as shown on the 1909 Official Map of San Mateo County
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
22
brothers’ occupation is discussed above in greater detail.
In 1892, Richard Ray sold his property to William Hughes, of Hanson, Ackerson & Co., a large
lumber company in the area (Foss 1941:6). Later, it was sold to Henry Hilderbrandt, who then
sold it to the Italian-Swiss brothers Julio and Felix Guerra sometime between 1909 and 1927
(Kneese 1927; Neuman 1909) (Figure 8, Figure 9). On both the 1902 and 1940 USGS
topographic quadrangles, standing buildings are shown at the Ray Ranch site (Figures 10 and
11).
In the 1940s, George Bordi states that one Manuel Alexander rented the ranch from the Guerras,
where he ran a dairy (G. Bordi 2006). Judy Wilson states that her family – the Cunha family –
leased most of the Sears Ranch Road ranches in more recent years, from the 1950s into the 1980s
(Judy Wilson, personal communication, April 29, 2016). This includes the Ray Ranch. The
family, of Portuguese descent, started out in dairying and then shifted to raising of beef cattle in
later years, including growing hay and oats for feed. They must have been leasing the property
from the Guerra family at that time, as the 1960 county map shows it under the ownership of
Filemena Guerra (San Mateo County 1960). Aerial photographs from 1953 and 1980 show the
buildings that were present on the Ray Ranch at those times; during the years the Cunhas were
leasing it (Figures 12 and 13). The Cunhas, as discussed below, also leased the Guerra-Zanoni
and Wool ranches during their tenure (Judy Wilson, personal communication, April 29, 2016).
They lived at one or more of the ranches during the summer, but lived at Half Moon Bay during
the school year in order for their children (Judy Wilson and her sister Jeanette) to attend the
better schools in this larger community.
Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
The Guerra-Zanoni Ranch is situated in the southeast ¼ of Section 10, in Township 7S, Range
4W (See Figure 2). The property first belonged to Salvador Castro, as part of the Rancho San
Gregorio, as previously noted. The property as shown on the 1868 and 1877 Official Maps of
San Mateo County belonged to Michael Dubbs (Figures 6 & 7). Dubbs was one of the early
pioneers at La Honda (Foss 1941:7-8). In March of 1880, William Hughes purchased the Dubbs’
property and in 1886 rented it to Charles Dearborn. This is the parcel that includes the present-
day Guerra-Zanoni Ranch (Figure 8). Hughes owned the property until at least 1909 as shown
on the 1909 Official Map of San Mateo County (Figure 9). By 1927, the Italian-Swiss brothers
Julio and Felix Guerra possessed both halves (Neuman 1909; Kneese 1927). Buildings are
shown on the 1902 and 1940 topographic maps (see Figures 10 and 11).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
23
Figure 10. 1902 map showing ranches and roads
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
24
Figure 11. 1940 map showing ranches and roads
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
25
Figure 12. 1953 Aerial Photograph of Ray Ranch
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
26
Figure 13. 1980 aerial photograph of Ray Ranch
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
27
Apparently, the Guerras still owned it into the 1940s, renting out the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch to Joe
Zanoni, another Italian-Swiss immigrant (G. Bordi 2006). George Bordi was also Italian-Swiss
and he described his days working for Joe Zanoni for two summers in the 1940s, when Joe was
running a small dairy at the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch. It was typical at the time for San Mateo
family dairies, of which there were many, to milk 15 to 20 cows a day and ship the cream in 5-
and 10-gallon cans to be made into butter. A family could exist on dairy products from this size
herd. Joe Zanoni was milking 50 cows a day. Bordi’s family was also operating a dairy higher
up in the hills, in the Alpine. He helped Joe with haying. Joe had planted red oats for hay and
for feed grain, and used it for seed for the coming year. He, like many others, was attempting to
grow as much of his own feed for his cows as possible.
Bordi (G. Bordi 2006) also described the buildings that the typical La Honda ranch would have.
Most had large redwood barns and a horse barn fitted with stalls and with room for their feed.
They would have a cow barn with stanchions for milking and space for storage of hay, and
possibly a thick-walled dairy house for processing and storage of cream if this was not done in
the barn. The dairies also usually had stout granaries for storing heavy sacks of feed barley and
seeds for the next hay planting.
Felix and Julio Guerra were Italian-speaking brothers, born in Switzerland in the 1850s and
1860s (US Census 1930). Most likely, they, like other Italian-Swiss immigrants, came from the
Swiss Canton Ticino, which was culturally Italian (Furnis 1999). They immigrated to the United
States in 1882 and became naturalized American citizens. They owned the large parcel of land
that comprises the eastern portion of land within the former Driscoll Ranch by 1927. By 1930,
they were living in Redwood City in the same household. Julio was the older brother, age 72 in
1930, married to Teny, age 63 (US Census 1930). Felix was single, and was 65 years old in
1930. They listed their occupations at this time as “None” as they were essentially retired. As of
1960, 450.82 acres of the original parcel, as well as an adjoining 254.95 acres still belonged to
Felix Guerra (San Mateo County 1960).
In a recent telephone conversation with Judy Wilson (daughter of Henry Cunha), Samantha
Schell learned that the Cunha family leased most of the ranches along Sears Ranch Road for
many years in recent times, dairying in their early years and raising beef cattle in later years
(Judy Wilson, personal communication, April 29, 2016). This implies that the Guerra-Zanoni
Ranch was one that they leased. Henry Cunha and his brother started out as dairy farmers in
Half Moon Bay. For 30 years, Henry also leased the Wool Ranch as part of his operations. He
raised oats, hay, and beef cattle. The Cunha use of the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch, as well as of the
Ray Ranch and Wool Ranch, likely occurred after the 1940s, from the 1950s to the 1980s. An
aerial photograph from 1953 depicts the standing buildings and structures at that time (Figure 14)
Sometime between the 1970s and the 1990s, the property formerly owned by the Guerra brothers
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
28
was acquired by the Driscoll family, who kept it until selling it to the MROSD.
Wool Ranch
The Wool Ranch is located in the north-central section of the former Driscoll Ranch property, in
Section 9 (See Figure 2). As with the other Project Area ranches, it first belonged to Salvador
Castro during the American period (a detailed history of the property owners is presented in
Appendix C). The 1868, 1877, and 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County versions show the
property belonging to Henry Seale and the 1909 county map names Thomas Seale as property
owner (Figures 6-9). In the 1920s and 1930s, the Zanoni family is said to have lived there,
probably renting the property, with Joe Zanoni being one of the children raised there (G. Bordi
2006). By the 1940s, Peter Faber was the owner, a dairyman who used it for haying and pastures
for dry stock, as he also owned a commercial dairy in Palo Alto. The Half Moon Bay 1940
topographic map shows no buildings or structures at the current location of the Wool Ranch
(Figure 11). However, the 1953 aerial photograph does show the house, barns and other
buildings at the current location, along what was known as “Seale Road” on some maps (Figure
15; Bromfield 1894). It is possible the buildings were in existence prior to 1940, as the USGS
maps were sometimes years behind in reflecting built resources on the ground. George Bordi’s
account certainly suggests that a ranch existed where the Wool Ranch now stands.
Following the Faber occupancy, A. J. and D. E. Wool owned the ranch, as well as other
properties to the north. They are shown on the 1960 county map (San Mateo County 1960). As
mentioned above, the Cunha family leased the Wool Ranch for 30 years, from the 1950s to the
1980s (Judy Wilson, personal communication, April 29, 2016). The ranch buildings are shown
in aerial photographs from 1953, 1956, and 1960 (Figures 15-17). They used the property for
dairying and growing hay and oats, and may have seasonally occupied the house. Sometime
during the 1970s to 1990s, the property was acquired by Rudy Driscoll Jr.
Folger Ranches
Upper Folger Ranch History
As with the other Project Area ranches, it first belonged to Salvador Castro during the American
period (Figure 6 & 7). Some after 1868, Alfred R. Woodhams purchased land in Sections 16 and
17 of Township 7S, Range 4W from Salvador Castro and eventually sold some of it to James W.
Bell after 1877 (see Figure 8). Presumably, any or all of these owners allowed logging of
redwoods to take place on this large property, though there is no definite evidence for this at
present. James Bell was an Irish immigrant living in Sacramento, California in 1850 with his
wife Jane. They were both in their twenties at the time (U. S. Census 1850). In 1860, James and
Jane were living in the San Francisco area and had six children between the ages of 8 years and 6
months old (U. S. Census 1860). This included twin boys George and James. James’ occupation
was listed as “Milk Ranch” (presumably a dairy) and a 23 year old man, James Neely, was part
of the household, listed as a laborer. He was also from Ireland. The real estate for James Bell
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
29
Figure 14. 1953 aerial photograph of the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
30
Figure 15. 1953 aerial photograph of the Wool Ranch
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
31
Figure 16. 1956 aerial photograph of Wool Ranch, with possible oil exploration grids
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
32
Figure 17. 1960 aerial photograph of Wool Ranch
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
33
was valued at $5,000.
By 1870, the James W. Bell family was living in San Mateo County (U. S. Census 1870). This
was near La Honda, but closer to San Gregorio, to the west. By this time, they had had two more
children, and their household included three men who were listed as farm laborers. James was
listed as a farmer, with property worth $30,000. The farm hands included one Irishman, a
Spaniard, and an American born in Massachusetts. His property was approximately 4 miles west
of La Honda. It consisted of 1,042 acres, as shown on the 1894 Official Map of San Mateo
County (Cloud 1877; Bromfield 1894). The place was known as the Bell Ranch. On part of his
property, Bell established the Bell School. He also discovered red sulfur and mercury on his
property, and later, petroleum (a + h llc 2015).
As of 1880, the Bell family was well-settled near La Honda, with 54-year old James W. Bell still
listed as a farmer (U.S. Census 1880). Six of his grown children were listed in the household,
undoubtedly working on the farm as well as assisting with the other family pursuits. The
adjacent village of Bellvale was named after his family, where he and his wife ran a hotel and
post office (Cloud 1928:2). Bell leased several sections of land to oil companies, which began
drilling in the La Honda Oil Field as early as 1879 (a+h llc 2015). He and Jane continued to
reside here as late as 1900, when they were both 75 years old (U. S. Census 1900).
By 1909, Bell’s property had transferred to Robert A. and Manuel F. Silva, except for a small
26-acre parcel along La Honda Road and San Gregorio Creek which still belonged to the Bells
(Figure 9; Neuman 1909). The same ownership pattern is evident on the 1927 Official Map of
San Mateo County (Kneese 1927). Topographic maps for 1902 and 1940 depict standing
buildings on the Bell property, at the Upper Folger Ranch location, as well as 0.25 mile to the
south-southwest (see Figures 10 and 11). The southern group of buildings is no longer extant
and is not included in the present-day Folger Ranch property.
In the 1880 Census, Manuel Silva, age 33, is listed as a laborer from the Azores Islands
(possessions of Portugal), and is listed just beneath two Bell family households in the census (U.
S. Census 1880). He and his small family must have been living close to the Bells, therefore,
and possibly renting ranch property from the Bells, or providing labor to them. As mentioned
above, Robert and Manuel Silva owned the property in 1909. A single building is depicted on
the 1902 topographic map of 1:125,000 scale in the location of the present-day Upper Folger
Ranch (USGS 1902) (see Figure 10). On most ranch properties on this map, a single building is
shown at each, suggesting that the scale of the map precluded showing the actual number of
buildings at each location. According to Cloud (1928:2), the Silva Ranch was thriving in 1928,
described as situated between Bellvale and San Gregorio. In the 1940s, Robbie (Robert A.?)
Silva owned this same property, located along the west half of the recent Driscoll Ranch, where
the Upper and Lower Folger Ranches now stand (G. Bordi 2006).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
34
The 1940 USGS 15 minute Half Moon Bay, California topographic map shows four buildings
and structures at the Upper Folger Ranch, with another three buildings to the south a short
distance (USGS 1940) (see Figure 5). On a 1953 aerial photograph, seven buildings and 11 fruit
trees in rows can be seen (Figure 18; NETR 1953). It is likely that Robbie Silva occupied this
ranch during the 1940s and 1950s at least. By 1955, an oil well was located a short distance to
the southwest, and by 1961 still more oil wells were in operation southwest and south of the
ranch (USGS 1955; 1961). The ranch buildings were still standing during this time (Figure 19).
In 1960, Carter Lane was shown as the property owner (San Mateo County 1960).
According to Judy Wilson (Judy Wilson, personal communication, April 29, 2016), Charlie
Bettencourt leased the Upper Folger Ranch for many years, but has since moved out of the area.
Based on his last name, it is likely that Charlie Bettencourt is also of Portuguese ethnicity.
Today, the cluster of ranch buildings within the northwest ¼ of Section 16 is referred to as the
Upper Folger Ranch, acquired by Rudy Driscoll Jr. sometime between the 1970s and 1990s.
Charlie Bettencourt was reached by telephone by Cogstone and he explained that he arrived at
the Folger Ranch in 1959, where he leased the entire property from Carter Lane for about 10
years (Charlie Bettencourt, personal communication, May 2, 2016). Then, Peter Folger,
grandson of J. A. Folger, of coffee fame and fortune, purchased the 1000+ acre ranch.
Bettencourt continued on, working for Folger raising beef cattle, barley, oats, and hay for another
10 years. It is Peter Folger’s name that is currently attached to the ranch.
Lower Folger Ranch History
The history of the Lower Folger Ranch, located in the southwest corner of the southwest ¼ of
Section 16, and approximately 0.60 mile south of Upper Folger Ranch, is the same as that of the
Upper Folger Ranch up until 1902. Unlike the Upper Folger Ranch, the 1902 topographic map
shows no buildings at the Lower Folger Ranch location, nor does the 1940 map (USGS 1902;
1940) (see Figures 10 and 11). The 1953 aerial map does show a large barn to the south of the
later complex, along the main dirt road, and across from a few smaller buildings (see Figure 20;
NETR 1953). This group may have belonged to S. J. Tichnor or Tichenor, as shown on the 1927
San Mateo County map (Bromfield 1894; Neuman 1909; Kneese 1927). The large barn, now
collapsed, is included in the Lower Folger Ranch complex for the purposes of this study, as
shown on the Project maps in this report.
The same list of property owners applies to the Lower Folger Ranch, from Salvador Castro, to
Alfred Woodhams, to James W. Bell to Robert and Manuel Silva, to Carter Lane, to Peter Folger
in 1967, and eventually to Rudy Driscoll. But the buildings and structures that currently
comprise the Lower Folger Ranch appeared later in time than those at the Upper Folger Ranch.
By 1960, the small barn on the west side of the road appeared in an aerial photograph and by
1968 all of the Lower Folger Ranch buildings were in place (NETR 1960; 1968) (Figure 21). By
1960, Carter Lane owned this and the Upper Folger Ranch property.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
35
Figure 18. 1953 aerial photograph of Upper Folger Ranch
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
36
Figure 19. 1960 aerial photograph of Upper Folger Ranch
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
37
Figure 20. 1953 aerial photograph of Lower Folger Ranch and south barn
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
38
Figure 21. 1968 aerial photograph showing Lower and Upper Folger ranches
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
39
SURVEY RESULTS
An architectural survey of the Project Area was completed on April 22, 2016 by Lynn Furnis,
Cogstone Principal Architectural Historian. The 3649.65-acre Project Area is a working cattle
ranch situated between La Honda Creek on the east, Bogess Creek on the west, and between La
Honda Road (State Highway 84) on the south, and Bear Gulch Road on the north. It is in a rural
area adjacent to the small community of La Honda, in steep terrain within the Coast Range.
Currently, the four ranch sub-areas within the Project Area include 20 standing buildings and
structures and four collapsed structures, for a total of 24 structures. The four ranches were each
inventoried, structure by structure, from April 20 through April 22, 2016. They are organized in
the following text by ranch complex, then by individual building within that grouping.
RAY RANCH (APN NO.078-290-030)
The Ray Ranch complex currently is composed of ten buildings and structures (Figure 22).
Included are two large open-sided barns for feeding cattle, two corrals (one round and one
rectangular), and one plywood garden shed that are considered less than 45 years old. One barn
and both corrals are shown in Figures 23 and 24 but are not further described, nor evaluated in
this report because they are not yet 45 years old. The two barns, shown as RR-1 and RR-9, on
Figure 13 were in place by 1980 and the corrals (RR-3 and RR-4) were not constructed until
after 1980, based on aerial photographs (NETR 1980). The garden shed is not shown on the
figure, but stands at the edge of the yard just southeast of the house (RR-6).
Figure 22. Overview of Ray’s Ranch, view to west-northwest
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
40
Figure 23. Cattle feeding and hay barn, RR-1, south elevation
Figure 24. Circular and rectangular corrals, RR-3 and RR-4, view north
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
41
Figure 25. Sketch map of Ray’s Ranch structures as of 2016
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
42
The remaining five buildings and structures appear to be historic in age, despite extensive
alterations and modifications to them in later years. They are RR-2, RR-5, RR-6, RR-7, and RR-
8.
RR-2: Large Storage Shed or Workshop
The large wood structure designated RR-2 is a tall, one-story edifice, rectangular in plan, facing
northwest, and oriented northwest-southeast (Figures 20 and 21). It has a front-gabled roof of
low pitch, clad in corrugated ferrous metal, with a narrow overhang and exposed eaves. The
building is of wood frame construction, with wall exteriors now clad in large sheets of plywood
or pressboard. The structure is extremely plain and utilitarian. Its northwest (front) elevation
has one large off-center double door, located in the east half. Its plywood sheets, like those on
the remainder of the building are covered at their seams with wood battens. Its west elevation is
devoid of any openings. On the south elevation, a large, three-part glass window is set in the
center. It is composed of a large, fixed center pane, flanked on each side by one narrow, vertical
three-pane window, one of which may have been movable in some way. The east elevation has a
person-sized access door of wood at its north end.
The structure stands on small truncated pyramidal concrete piers that rest on the ground surface.
Beneath the more modern plywood-type exterior sheathing, one can see from the interior that the
plywood covers wooden walls composed of 1 by 12 inch boards and that the floor is of stout
wood boards and joists. Much of the roof has caved in and the structure as a whole appears
ready to collapse within a few years. All of the observed nails on the structure are steel wire
drawn nails. RR-2 was present by at least 1953, based on an aerial photograph from that year
(NETR 1953).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
43
Figure 26. RR-2, Large Shed or Workshop, north and east elevations
Figure 27. RR-2, Large Shed or Workshop, west and south elevations
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
44
RR-5: Large Barn
As shown in Figure 19, the RR-5 barn is located fairly close to the house. It is two stories in
height, but does not have a second floor inside. It is a large, rectangular plan structure facing
west and oriented north-south (Figures 22 and 23). The barn is front-gabled, with a roof of
moderate pitch, covered in corrugated metal. It has a narrow overhang and exposed eaves.
Exterior walls are clad in plywood-like sheets with battens that have been nailed over original 1
by 12-inch vertical boards.
The front (west) elevation has tall, central, strap-hinged double doors and a wide, shorter door at
the north end, where a sliding door, suspended from a metal rail once existed. At its south end,
the west elevation is pierced by a small access door. The barn’s north elevation is plain except
for one narrow doorway, which once had a sliding wood or metal door in front of it. The rear or
east elevation has central double, strap-hinged wood doors clad in plywood sheets and one
window symmetrically spaced at each end. The windows are possibly old replacement windows,
as the northern one fills a space that was originally a larger opening. The windows are possibly
hopper type windows, with metal frames and faux muntins, meant to look like 16-pane windows.
The south elevation is plain and has just one tiny blinded window at its west end. As with RR-2,
this barn is set upon truncated pyramidal piers of concrete, space a few feet apart all around the
base of the barn.
The barn has a stout wood floor and at present is used for the storage of equipment, various
vehicles and other items. A cement or concrete driveway connects the barn front door to the
graveled lane within the complex. The barn structure also articulates with pasture fences on its
southwest and northeast corners. It faces the house, located some 150 feet to the west. RR-5
was present at Ray’s Ranch by at least 1953, based on an aerial photograph from that year
(NETR 1953).
RR-6: Ranch House
The small house at the ranch was occupied until recently by a caretaker (Aaron Hebert, personal
communication, April 20, 2016). It is one story in height, L-shaped in plan, east-facing, and
oriented east-west (Figure 30). It is vernacular in style, having a low-pitched front gabled roof
with a lower pitch shed roof extending to the north, above the north half of the house. This
configuration gives the front façade a sideways saltbox shape. The roof is clad in composition
shingles and has a narrow overhang and exposed eaves. The house exterior is covered with a
variety of materials, reflecting additions and modifications over time.
The east elevation is all on one vertical plane, clad in plywood-like sheets with battens. It has a
nearly centered front door with ten lights in a wood frame and two wood frame windows. The
southern window is a medium-size, composed of four panes and appears fixed at present. The
northern window is larger, with six panes, two of which are smaller than the others, but it is also
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
45
fixed. It may be a homemade or modified window, perhaps salvaged from another structure. A
later addition is the plywood sheet porch cover that has been crudely placed over the front door,
braced with small boards. The north elevation is clad in sheets of plywood without benefit of
battens. It has four windows, with a large aluminum slider at the east end, a small wood sash 1/1
window near the center, then a large metal frame slider at the center adjacent to a doorway with
no door. The slider has faux muntins that give the appearance of six panes of glass in each half
of the slider. A similar, large metal frame window with faux muntins, but of double hung sash
type is set near the west end of the elevation.
The west elevation of the house is clad in T1-11 siding, wood shingles, and composition roofing
sheets (Figure 31). It is fitted with a large metal frame sash window on the north and a picture
window in the south half, which appears to be an addition. This window consists of a large fixed
upper pain with two, possibly movable lower panes. The south elevation is clad in bare,
horizontal 1 by 12 inch boards on its west, projecting bay and plywood sheeting on the east half.
The projecting bay has a door opening at its east end, with a porch cover above it, then along the
recessed eastern portion of the elevation there are a large and a small aluminum slider, with a 10-
light wooden door near the east end. The house is surrounded by a fenced yard area, with a large
wooden animal pen, a plywood garden shed, a number of domestic fruit and ornamental trees, as
well as many domestic flowering plants.
Figure 28. RR-5, Large Barn, west and north elevations
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
46
Figure 29. RR-5, Large Barn, east and north elevations
Figure 30. RR-6, Ranch house, east elevation
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
47
Figure 31. RR-6, ranch house, west elevation
RR-6, ranch house, was present at Ray’s Ranch by at least 1953, based on an aerial photograph
from that year (NETR 1953). It is evident from the shape and location that the original house
from the mid-1900s is still within the existing structure to some degree, but the many
replacement windows, the variety of sidings, and the rather crude addition to the south and west
elevations has considerably modified the original building to the point where it is difficult to
discern its original form and style.
RR-7: Shed or Workshop
RR-7 is a modest-sized structure, of one-story height, rectangular in plan, east-facing, and
oriented east-west (Figure 32). It is located north of the ranch house and barn complex, not far
from the two ponds that now exist on the property. The structure is front-gabled, with a
moderately-pitched roof, with narrow overhang and exposed eaves. It is covered with
composition shingles. The wall exteriors are covered in plywood-like sheets with battens that
were at one time painted. This is true of all the other buildings and structures at Ray’s Ranch, as
well.
The east elevation is the front of the building, which is plain, with a large wood door at the south
end and a small wood frame slider window at center. The north elevation is plain and devoid of
any openings. The west elevation is fitted with a large wood door at its north end, similar to the
door on the east elevation, fastened by means of strap hinges (Figure 33). Along its lower
section, much of the west wall is gone, exposing some of its internal structure and exhibiting
damage to the building (Figure 34). Its foundations here appear to be bare wood posts standing
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
48
on bare earth. RR-7, shed or workshop, was present at Ray’s Ranch by at least 1953, based on
an aerial photograph from that year (NETR 1953).
RR-8: Bunkhouse
The RR-8 building is more intact than most of the others at Ray’s Ranch. It has many windows
and only human-sized doors, suggesting its possible use as living quarters for ranch hands or
ranch owners, or as work space for inside activities (Figure 35). It is a one-story building,
rectangular in plan, of plain, utilitarian style. It is front-gabled, east-facing, and oriented east-
west, located south of the ranch house and big barn (RR-5). The roof is moderate in pitch, clad
in corrugated metal, with narrow overhang and boxed eaves and wide fascia board along the tops
of the walls. Exterior wall siding is heavy plywood-like sheets with battens, nailed over original
wide wood boards.
The east (front) elevation has a central wooden entry door and a wood frame 2/2 sash window.
The north elevation has two large single-pane, wood frame windows that appear fixed. The west
elevation has a central double door of wood, while the south elevation is fitted with an aluminum
frame replacement slider of medium size. The building may contain two interior rooms. RR-8,
Figure 32. RR-7, Shed or Workshop, east elevation
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
49
Figure 33. RR-7, Shed or Workshop, north and west elevations
a possible bunkhouse, was present at Ray’s Ranch by at least 1953, based on an aerial
photograph from that year (NETR 1953).
Figure 34. RR-7, Shed or Workshop, close-up of west elevation damage
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
50
Figure 35. RR-8, possible Bunkhouse, east and north elevations
Figure 36. RR-8, possible Bunkhouse, north and west elevations
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
51
GUERRA-ZANONI RANCH (APN NO. 078-290-010 AND 078-270-030)
The Guerra-Zanoni Ranch currently consists of eight structures and buildings, as shown in
Figure 37. Of these, five appear to be historic in age. The buildings are scattered along the east
and west sides of the north end of Sears Ranch Road, but are most dense to the west (Figure 38).
Two corrals (not numbered) and two structures (GZR-2 and GZR-7) appear to be modern in age.
These include a dog kennel and a large storage shed. They will not be further discussed here nor
evaluated for significance.
GZR-1: Small Barn
This small wood barn, once painted pale green, is the northernmost structure at the Guerra-
Zanoni Ranch complex. It is a one-story, rectangular-plan, side-gabled structure that is east-
facing and is oriented north-south (Figure 39). Its roof is of moderate pitch and is clad in
corrugated metal, though much of it is now gone. It has a narrow overhang with exposed eaves.
The exterior walls are sided in vertical boards of 1 by 12-inch dimension, with the interior
surfaces being horizontal 1 by 12s.
The east elevation of the barn has a large, central doorway, large enough for small farm
machinery and/or horses to pass through. Its north elevation is composed of board and batten
construction on the gable, with the same large size boards for the remainder of the wall as on the
east. It has no doors or windows. The west elevation of GZR-1 is similar to the east elevation,
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
52
Figure 37. Sketch Map of Guerra-Zanoni Ranch structures in 2016
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
53
with one large central doorway. It has several horizontal boards nailed across the top, above the
doorway. The barn’s south elevation has the same siding and construction, though most of the
exterior boards are gone, leaving the interior board wall and wall studs exposed to the elements.
Figure 38. Guerra-Zanoni Ranch overview, view to southwest
Figure 39. GZR-1, small barn, east elevation
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
54
Figure 40. GZR-1, small barn, south elevation
The barn’s floor is also composed of large boards supported by massive joists. This building is
thought to have stood at the ranch since at least 1940, based on a map from that year, and based
on the building’s stout construction members (USGS 1940).
GZR-4: Ranch House
The house at Guerra-Zanoni Ranch appears to have undergone alterations and additions over the
years. It almost appears to be two small houses joined together (Figure 41). The house is
currently occupied and this ranch is used primarily for sheltering rescue dogs and cattle grazing.
It is a one-story, east-facing building, oriented north-south, and roughly rectangular in plan. The
roof is cross-gabled and steep in pitch, covered in composition shingles. It has a narrow
overhang with boxed eaves and wide frieze beneath it. The house exterior is sided in modern,
but rustic-looking wood siding, similar to T1-11, first produced in the 1970s.
The front (east) elevation of GZR-4 is composed of two halves – first the projecting, more
vertical and front-gabled bay, possibly the older, original part of the house on the south side. It
is tall enough to have a second story, but there are no windows or other openings in the upper
part of the exterior. Second is the adjoining north half of the elevation, which is recessed, with a
wide, covered porch across the front. Here the off-center front entryway stands, with a wood
panel style door. All of the three windows on the east are metal-framed sash types. The porch is
composed of salvaged boards, with two concrete steps leading up to it.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
55
Figure 41. GZR-4, ranch house, east and north elevations
On the north elevation of the house are two medium-sized aluminum sliders. The rear (west)
elevation reflects the two different halves, as well (Figure 42). Here the north half projects a few
feet to the west and is set with a rear wood panel door and one sash window. The south half is
slightly recessed with one window in it. The south elevation includes one sash window and one
wood frame door with ten lights.
Based on topographic maps and aerial photographs, as well as the details of the building, at least
some part of the house is thought to have stood on this site since at least 1940 (USGS 1940;
NETR 1953). One building is depicted on the 1902 USGS map, but which building it may
represent is not known (USGS 1902). The south half of the house may be the original house
structure, and if so, it has been extensively altered over time.
GZR-5: Shed or Workshop
West of the house and at the edge of the rear yard are two small wood structures. GZR-5 may
have served as a shed or workshop (Figure 43). It is one story in height, with a low-pitched,
side-gabled roof. The shed is south-facing, oriented east-west. Corrugated metal covers the
roof, while all exterior walls are clad I 1 by 12 boards, as with GZR-1 barn. The east elevation
has no openings, while the north elevation has five small windows that appear to be original and
are possibly hopper types. This structure has been present since at least 1953 (NETR 1953).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
56
Figure 42. GZR-4, ranch house, west elevation
Figure 43. GZR-5, shed, east and north elevations
GZR-6: Cabin
Adjacent to GZR-5, and west of the ranch house (GZR-4) stands this small shingle-sided cabin
(Figure 44). It is one story in height, rectangular in plan, and side-gabled. The cabin is
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
57
vernacular in style, with a roof of moderate pitch, covered with wood shingles at one time, but
many of which are now missing. It faces east, and is oriented north-south. The structure’s east
elevation has an entryway and its south elevation has a window. At present, the cabin appears to
be used for storage. It is thought to have been on the property since at least 1953 (NETR 1953).
While it is poor condition, it does not appear to have been modified to any extent.
Figure 44. GZR-6, small cabin, south and east elevations
GZR-7: Storage Shed
The shed known as GZR-7 may have stood on the property since at least 1953 (NETR 1953). If
so, the structure has been modified since that time. This one-story, plywood-clad structure is
north-facing, with no windows or doors on the west, south, and east sides (Figure 45). It is a
plain, utilitarian building, front-gabled with moderately-pitched roof covered in composition
shingles. It has a narrow overhang and exposed rafters. Its walls are clad in sheets of plywood,
which may or may not be covering older siding. Nothing on the outside of the structure suggests
it is from the 1950s, other than its style.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
58
Figure 45. GZR-7, storage shed, east elevation
WOOL RANCH (APN NO. 078-270-030)
The Wool Ranch currently consists of four structures and buildings, as shown in Figure 46. All
appear to be historic in age, but one, a moderately-sized barn or storage building (WR-1) is
completely collapsed. It is located more than 1000 feet east of the ranch house.
WR-1: Barn or Workshop
This collapsed structure, known here as WR-1, was apparently a barn or other moderately large
structure. It was of wood-frame construction, with corrugated metal covering the roof and heavy
wood floor joists (Figure 47). It is made with wire nails. The building is known to date to at
least 1960, when it first was depicted on an aerial map (NETR 1953).
WR-2: Ranch House
The Wool Ranch house was constructed on this site by 1953, having the same configuration as it
does today, except for a couple of details. It is a surprisingly modern-looking house, especially
considering its remote location. It is a single-story, Ranch-style house, with complex plan. The
house is northwest facing, looking towards the winding, adjacent Wool Ranch Road and is
oriented northeast-southwest, with a rambling appearance. The roof is complex, with a hipped
roof above the projecting, main entry bay, as well as separate hipped components over two other
bays to the south and east, and a gable segment connecting two of the hipped components. The
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
59
roofs are all of low pitch, covered in shake shingles, and form narrow overhangs around the
house. Most of the siding on the house is now replacement aluminum siding, in a pattern
mimicking wood drop siding. In one location on the south side of the house, actual wood siding
of the same width as the metal pattern is present. The garage retains its original wood drop
siding on its rear elevation.
On the northwest (front) elevation, the main bay projects approximately 5 feet to the northwest.
It has a central wooden door with nine lights, an aluminum slider at its north end, with wood
trim, and a large horizontal, six-pane window south of the front door that may or may not be
fixed. A rough, homemade porch was added to the front of this bay, comprised of large sized
boards and posts, with wooden eaves covered with corrugated metal. At the southwest corner of
this front bay stands a massive brick fireplace and chimney. The middle section of the front
elevation is recessed and is fitted with two wood-trimmed windows, one being similar to the
large one on the front bay, with six horizontal panes, and the other being an aluminum slider.
Further south, a small structure has been added to the elevation to house the water heater. This
structure looks suspiciously like an outhouse that has been reused and relocated. It has a shed
roof also covered in shake shingles. It abuts a third bay on the front, which also projects to the
northwest. The projecting segment may be an addition that articulates with an originally
detached garage.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
60
Figure 46. Sketch Map of Wool Ranch structures, as of 2016
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
61
Figure 47. WR-1, collapsed barn/shop, view to southeast
Figure 48. WR-2, ranch house, northwest elevation
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
62
The northeast elevation of the house has two large aluminum sliders and one casement window,
as well as a low, rectangular structure that has been added to the side of the house and has a long
stove pipe projecting up above the roof edge.
The rear (southeast) elevation forms a U shape, with projecting bays at north and south ends and
a wooden deck surrounding more than half of the exterior (Figure 49). The northern two-thirds
of this elevation are filled with large picture windows, aluminum sliders, sliding glass doors and
other fixed windows, to take advantage of the pool area and of the view. While the house
appeared on an aerial map from 1953, the back yard swimming pool was not in place until
sometime between 1960 and 1991, probably not until at least the 1980s by the looks of its tiles
and general appearance. The projecting southern bay may be a later addition as it looks
somewhat incongruous and there is a break in the siding on its southwest elevation. In this area,
the wood roof trim is different and some of the siding is actual wood rather than aluminum.
The southwest elevation of the house is an alignment of additions, starting with the bay just
described above, followed by one original section of the house, then northwest of that the
addition that joined the house to the garage, then the southeast and southwest elevations of the
garage (which is sided in actual wood drop siding), ending at a shed-like addition added to the
northwest side of the garage, possibly for additional automobile storage (Figure 50).
Figure 49. WR-2, ranch house and pool, rear elevation
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
63
Figure 50. WR-2, ranch house additions, on southwest elevation
WR-3: Cottage
WR-3 is a cottage or guest house in the rear yard of the ranch house, near the pool (Figure 51).
It is plain, of one story, with side-gabled roof of moderate pitch, covered in wood shake shingles.
It is rectangular in plan, facing northwest, towards the pool and is oriented north-south. The
cottage is sided in a combination of aluminum siding of the same pattern as the main house, with
a panel of T1-11 siding across much of the front elevation. Its front entrance is a sliding glass
door, accessed by means of a small, low wooden deck with railing. Aluminum sliders are set in
the northwest and southwest elevations. The cabin likely dates from the period when the main
house was re-sided, perhaps in the 1970s or 1980s, as was not present on the earlier maps and
aerial photographs (NETR 1953, 1960).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
64
Figure 51. WR-3, cottage, northwest and southwest elevations
WR-4: Upper Barn
The large, partially collapsed barn located to the northwest of the ranch house is known as the
Upper Wool Barn, here referred to as WR-4 (Figure 52). It is a single story barn, rectangular in
plan with multiple interior rooms, northeast-facing, and oriented southeast-northwest. It is very
close to the dirt road that provides access to the Wool Ranch. It is side-gabled, with a roof of
moderate pitch, covered in corrugated metal. Exterior walls are composed of a very stout T1-11
type wood siding, with interior walls composed of plywood sheets. The front (northeast)
elevation is missing much of its surface, but what is there is composed of the heavy, large sheets
of the T1-11. At the southeast end, a projecting enclosure or shelter extends approximately 6
feet to the northeast and is open across its northeast elevation.
The northwest elevation of the barn is mostly intact and retains all of its siding. It has no doors
or windows. The barn was in place at this location by 1953 (NETR 1953) but its siding suggests
the barn was re-sided at a later date. The corrals located across the road from this barn first
showed up on the 1991 aerial photograph (NETR 1991).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
65
Figure 52. WR-4, large barn, northeast elevation
FOLGER RANCH (APN NO. 082-170-040)
The Folger Ranch includes two different building and structure clusters, known as the Upper
Folger Ranch and the Lower Folger Ranch (see Figure 2). Upper Folger Ranch is shown in
Figure 53. Currently, there are three historic structures and buildings at this ranch, as well as a
more recent corral, and a standing cattle oiler that post-dates 1970.
Upper Folger Ranch
UFR-1: Animal Shelter
UFR-1 is a metal and wood animal shelter located at the north end of this small complex. It
faces north, and is oriented east-west. The structure is one story in height, rectangular in plan,
with a low-pitched shed roof (Figure 54). It is enclosed on three sides by sheet metal vertical
siding and open on the north side to allow cows to easily shelter here. The roof covering is
unknown, but it projects to the north for several feet, providing shelter above the wide open
elevation. The walls are composed of sheet metal, with the upper part of the east and west walls
covered with heavy T1-11 type siding.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
66
Figure 53. Sketch Map of Upper Folger Ranch structures as of 2016
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
67
Figure 54. UFR-1 animal shelter, north and west elevations
As mentioned above, the front (north) elevation is completely open, with a center support post to
hold up the roof, a heavy horizontal roof beam above the post and the thick roof overhang
projecting north for a few feet. The west and east elevations are similar, with vertically ribbed
metal siding, topped by T1-11 type siding and with no doors or windows. The rear (south)
elevation is also a solid sheet metal wall, devoid of openings, and without T1-11 siding at the
top. Instead this elevation is topped by two horizontal boards that are part of the roof structure.
The age of UFR-1 is difficult to discern from its materials and construction, though T1-11
became available in the early 1970s. This siding was probably a later addition, as the structure
itself is shown on the 1953 aerial photograph, and possibly on the 1940 topographic map (NETR
1953; USGS 1940). All of the existing buildings at Upper Folger Ranch date to at least 1953,
and possibly to at least 1940 for the same reasons.
UFR-2: Bunkhouse or Hunting Cabin
UFR-2 was a dwelling of some sort, possibly a small ranch house, a bunkhouse for ranch hands,
or a hunting cabin for some of the property owners, as is rumored (Aaron Hebert, personal
communication, April 20, 2016). It is a very simple, plain building, one story in height,
rectangular in plan that is north-facing and oriented east-west (Figure 55). The building is a
simple, vernacular side-gabled style, with a moderately-pitched roof covered in corrugated metal,
with narrow overhang and open eaves. A short, wide stovepipe projects from roof in the
southeast corner of the building. The building is clad in wood drop siding.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
68
The front (north) elevation has two entry doors at its west end, both of wood panel style. One of
the doors leads into a small enclosed cell that is attached to the elevation as a later addition
(Figure 56). The north elevation also has a large window near the center that is presently
boarded up. A massive, crude, homemade porch cover stands in front of and above the two entry
doors. It is composed of wood support posts and heavy 1 by 12-inch vertical boards in its gable.
It is front-gabled and covered with corrugated metal.
The east elevation has a large louvered vent in its gable and the clear outline of a former
doorway that has been filled with wood siding. The south elevation is plain, with two openings.
At the center is a sliding glass door that definitely is a later addition or replacement. The second
is a small window near the west end, devoid of glass and boarded up. It had a wood frame. The
building foundation is visible on this elevation and consists of short wood posts standing on bare
ground. The building has been at this location since at least 1953 and possibly earlier, during the
1940s (NETR 1953; USGS 1940).
Figure 55. UFR-2, cabin or ranch house, north and east elevations
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
69
Figure 56. UFR-2, bunk house or hunting cabin, front addition detail
The west elevation also has a louvered gable vent and an access door. Inside, the room is clad in
wood clapboarding, well finished.
UFR-3: Large, collapsed barn
This large, collapsed hay barn lies approximately 500 feet south of the cabin and animal shelter,
described above (Figure 57). It is a wood frame structure, rectangular in plan, with taller center
bay flanked by lower, sloped wings. The roof was front-gabled and covered in corrugated metal.
Presumably, the structure was north-facing, but possibly its main entrance was to the east,
adjacent to the road into the ranch. Its walls were clad in vertical 1 by 12-inch boards. This
building has stood at the ranch probably since 1940 (NETR 1953; USGS 1940).
In the clearing just south of this barn, a feature labeled UPR-4 has been identified as a cattle
oiler. This is used to apply oil to cows’ skin in order to repel flies and to comb their old hair off
with attached metal curry combs (Figure 58). The device retains a stenciled mark “SITTNER
MFG. CO. INC./ SHERIDAN, WYOMING.” The mark indicates that the oiler was a product of
Ed Sittner. Sittner invented the cattle oiler in Nebraska and in 1971 moved to Sheridan,
Wyoming. This oiler, then, post-dates 1970 (Casper Star Tribune 2003).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
70
Figure 57. UFR-3, collapsed barn, north elevation
Figure 58. UFR-4, Sittner cattle oiler, view to east
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
71
Lower Folger Ranch
This complex is situated south of the Upper Folger Ranch (see Figure 2). It has four structures
included as part of this study – LFR-1, LFR-2, LFR-3, and LFR-4 (Figure 59). The first three
are located close together along the north-south road that connects both Folger ranches. None of
the three structures was present before about 1955, and only then was the barn (LFR-2) apparent
(NETR 1960; 1968; USGS 1955, 1961). The other two in that area were constructed in the
1960s, possibly at the time Peter Folger took ownership of the property in 1967. The fourth –
LFR-4 – was present by 1953, but may have been part of a different ranch, not on Folger
property (NETR 1953).
LFR-1: Ranch house
The ranch house for the Lower Folger Ranch is a modest, Ranch-style house with attached
garage, one story in height, rectangular in plan, east-facing toward the closest road, and oriented
north-south. It is side-gabled, with a low-pitched roof covered in composition shingles (Figure
60). It has a moderate overhang. The house is clad in painted board and batten siding and all
windows have wood trim. According to Aaron Hebert (personal communication, April 20,
2016), the MROSD refurbished the house extensively in recent years, including replacing siding
and many other elements both inside and out.
The east (front) elevation has a central front entry door located within the slightly recessed half
of the elevation. A narrow porch occupies the space in front of the recess and is fitted with
support posts and a decorative railing. Four sliders (some aluminum, some vinyl) are set in the
front elevation. A concrete step provides access to the front door from within the porch. The
north elevation is plain except for a small central aluminum slider. The rear (west) elevation has
three large sliders, a vinyl sliding glass door, and a brick fireplace and chimney, as well as back
steps to the door (Figure 61). A single wood access door leads into the attached garage on its
west elevation, as well. The roof of the garage is set a few feet lower than that of the house, due
to the slope of the land. The south elevation of the garage has a single large slider at center. The
large garage door for automobile entrance is located on the east elevation of the garage.
LFR-2: Small barn
Across the graveled road from the ranch house, just to the east, is a small wooden barn, perhaps a
horse barn. It is one and a half stories tall, front-gabled, with a low-pitch roof, and facing west.
It is oriented east-west and stands close to the access road to the ranch. Rectangular in plan, the
barn is plain and utilitarian in style, with an addition attached to its south side and having a low
shed roof. The roof is covered in composition shingles, has a narrow overhang, and exposed
eaves. The taller and original structural component is sided in several materials.
On its west elevation, the original barn structure is sided in wide-sized board and batten, while
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
72
Figure 59. Sketch map of the Lower Folger Ranch structures as of 2016
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
73
Figure 60. LFR-1, ranch house, east elevation
Figure 61. LFR-1, ranch house, north and west elevations
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
74
Figure 62. LFR-2, barn, west and south elevations
the south addition is composed of plywood sheets. An opening is located high on the wall near
the barn’s north end, possibly used for loading hay into the barn. Wide double doors of plywood
are attached to the front of the addition by large strap hinges, providing access to this bay. The
south elevation of the addition is plain, with one central window, and siding of large plywood
sheets. The north elevation has one small opening in its east half. It is clad in the same board
and batten as the front along its west half, then covered with plywood along the east half. The
barn articulates with fencing on two sides, which encloses a pasture in which three large
rectangular, modern corrals stand. These are east of the barn.
LFR-3: Workshop/Shed
To the south of the house, a roughly rectangular structure stands, fitted with large doors on its
east elevation, suggesting storage for automobiles or farm equipment (Figure 63). It is a single
story, utilitarian, vernacular structure that faces east and is oriented north-south. It has a side-
gabled, low-pitch roof covered in composition shingles. It has a moderate overhang and exposed
eaves. The structure is sided in plywood, some of it in sheets, some of it applied as board and
batten.
The east (front) elevation has a south bay that projects a few feet to the east and has a large
sliding door suspended from railing. North of this bay, within the recessed north half of the
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
75
Figure 63. LFR-3, workshop/shed, east elevation
elevation are two more large plywood pivot-type doors, also automobile or machinery size.
Its west elevation has an access door within a projecting bay at the north end. The bay has its
own roof element that overlaps the roof on the main part of the building. The south elevation has
a central slider. As previously mentioned, this structure has been at this ranch since the 1960s.
It is likely that the large plywood sheet siding is replacement cladding.
LFR-4: Collapsed barn down the road
A collapsed, large barn remains south of the Lower Folger Ranch complex, just off the main
access road, and at the location of a former intersection of dirt roads. The barn was of wood
construction, with a corrugated metal roof (Figure 64). It may have stood at this location since at
least 1953, when it stood just across another dirt road from two other buildings no longer present.
Based on its location and proximity to other buildings, it is possible that the barn stood on
Tichnor property, rather than on Folger land. Not much more can be said about it.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
76
Figure 64. LFR-4, collapsed hay barn
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
77
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION:
The buildings that comprise the present-day Driscoll Ranch date from at least1902 to the 1980s,
with great variation in time range from building to building. Most of the 21 recorded buildings
and structures have been altered to some degree over the years, and very few retain reasonable
integrity. All are evaluated below, individually, but, again organized within their respective
ranch complexes. The buildings and their evaluations are summarized in Table 2 Evaluation.
Table 2. Evaluation & Summary of CRHR Eligibility Evaluations
Ranch Complex Structure
No.
Type of Structure CRHR Eligibility
Criteria/ Integrity
Eligibility
Status Code
A B C D Int.
Ray’s Ranch RR-2 Large Storage Shed or
Workshop
- - - - P 6Z
RR-5 Large Barn - - - - F 6Z
RR-6 Ranch House - - - - P 6Z
RR-7 Shed or Workshop - - - - F 6Z
RR-8 Bunkhouse - - - - G 6Z
Guerra-Zanoni
Ranch
GZR-1 Small Barn - - - - P 6Z
GZR-4 Ranch House - - - - P 6Z
GZR-5 Shed or Workshop - - - - G 6Z
GZR-6 Cabin - - - - F 6Z
GZR-7 Storage Shed - - - - G 6Z
Wool Ranch WR-1 Lower Barn or Workshop - - - - P 6Z
WR-2 Ranch House - - - - F 6Z
WR-3 Cottage - - - - G 6Z
WR-4 Upper Barn - - - - P 6Z
Folger Ranch 6Z
Upper Folger Ranch UFR-1 Animal Shelter - - - - G 6Z
UFR-2 Bunk House or Hunting
Cabin
- - - - F 6Z
UFR-3 Large Collapsed Barn - - - - P 6Z
Lower Folger Ranch LFR-1 Ranch House - - - - F 6Z
LFR-2 Small Barn - - - - F 6Z
LFR-3 Workshop/Shed - - - - G 6Z
LFR-4 Collapsed Barn - - - - P 6Z
For “Integrity” P=poor, F=fair, G=good, and E=excellent
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
78
Ray Ranch
Structure RR-2: Large Storage Shed or Workshop
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure RR-2 is a large storage shed or workshop. It is at least 63 years old and quite possibly
at least 76 years old, going back to 1940. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of
Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s to 1960), of Manuel Alexander (dairying), of Henry
Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying, then cattle raising), and more recently of the
Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known, however, to be associated with
events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not
eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra in the 1920s to
1960, by Manuel Alexander (dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s,
by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Structure
RR-2 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or
local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
RR-2 is a basic, plain, utilitarian ranch structure, a common and large example, but not an
especially good example of its type or an example of a master workman. Structure RR-2 is not
considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The RR-2 structure retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has lost its
integrity of materials, workmanship, design, and feeling. The building is currently in a state of
partial collapse. Much of the roof has caved in, falling in on itself. It is sided in particle board
type sheets on the exterior, which is replacement siding. Beneath the current siding, the bones of
the structure are visible and they are substantial, old lumber, beginning with the flooring and
joists. Modifications to and deterioration of the structure is substantial. Its integrity is seriously
compromised.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
79
Structure RR-5: Large Barn
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure RR-5 is a large barn, most likely used for equipment storage. It is at least 76 years old,
going back to 1940 or longer. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix, Julio, or
Filamena Guerra (1920s -1960), of Manuel Alexander (dairying) (1940s), of Henry Cunha from
the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family
(cattle raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at
national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR
under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s-1960), by Manuel Alexander
(dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the
1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Structure RR-5 is not known to be
associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The barn is a common barn style for central and coastal California, but is not an especially good
example of the type or an example of a master workman. The barn is not considered eligible for
listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The RR-5 barn retains its integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, but has lost its
integrity of materials, workmanship, and design. The structure is currently in fair condition but
has had a few modifications. It is sided in particle board type sheets on the exterior, which is
replacement siding. Beneath the current siding, the bones of the structure are visible and they are
substantial, old lumber, beginning with the flooring and joists. Some of the building’s windows
are replacements, and one window opening has been blinded. One large doorway on the west
elevation is missing its suspended, rolling or sliding wooden door on the west elevation. The
lower segment of the south wall, east corner is missing, exposing the foundation to wind, water,
and cold. Near here, an entire plywood panel has fallen off the structure’s exterior, leading to
greater deterioration inside and out. Modifications to and deterioration of the structure are
mostly reversible, but they are affecting its integrity as long as they remain.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
80
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure RR-6: Ranch House
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure RR-6 is a ranch house. It is at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or longer. It has
been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s -1960), of
Manuel Alexander (dairying) (1940s), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying
and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The structure is not
known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The
building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s -1960), by Manuel Alexander
(dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the
1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Building RR-6 is not known to be
associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The building’s style is a vernacular one, and not a good example of one. It was not the
handiwork of a master workman or craftsman, but rather the work most likely of ranchers
themselves, or local carpenters. The house is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR
under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The RR-6 single-family house retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has
lost its integrity of materials, workmanship, design, and feeling. This building has been
extensively altered. First, there are several kinds of replacement siding – plywood sheets,
plywood board and batten, wood shingles, composition roofing sheets, T1-11 siding, and
horizontal boards – on the exterior. A number of modern replacement windows in metal frames
with faux muntins are set in the walls. One door is completely missing from its opening. Two
additions have been made to the house. The first is a crude porch roof added to the front of the
house, over the front door. The second is a crudely-made bay on the southwest corner of the
original house. One door within this bay has broken apart, leaving the inner half in the opening.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
81
Modifications to and deterioration of the structure is substantial, affecting its integrity.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure RR-7: Shed or Workshop
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure RR-7 is a modest-sized shed or workshop. It is at least 76 years old, going back to
1940 or longer. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix, Julio, or Filamena
Guerra (1920s -1960), of Manuel Alexander (dairying) (1940s), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s
to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-
raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national,
regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s -1960), by
Manuel Alexander (dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry
Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, RR-7 shed is not
known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The structure is a plain, simple, utilitarian ranch structure. It is not an especially good example
of its type or an example of a master workman. RR-7 is not considered eligible for listing on the
CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The RR-7 structure retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has lost its
integrity of materials, workmanship, design, and feeling. The building is currently in poor
condition. It is completely sided in replacement particle board like material. Along its west
elevation, a lower portion of the siding is gone, leaving its primitive foundations and interior
exposed to the elements. Beneath the current siding, the substantial wood bones of the structure
are visible and they are old lumber, beginning with the flooring and joists. Modifications to and
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
82
deterioration of the structure may not be fatal, possibly reversible, but they do affect its integrity.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure RR-8: Bunkhouse
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Building RR-8 is a possible bunkhouse, in the best condition of any of the Ray’s Ranch
structures. It is probably at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or more. It has been under the
ownership, rental, or lease of Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s -1960), of Manuel
Alexander (dairying) (1940s), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-
raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The building is not known to
be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore,
not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s-1960), by
Manuel Alexander (dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry
Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Building RR-8 is
not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local
levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The building is a plain, simple, utilitarian ranch dwelling. It is not an exceptional example of its
type or an example of a master workman. RR-7 is not considered eligible for listing on the
CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The RR-8 bunkhouse retains its integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, but has lost
its integrity of materials, workmanship, and design. The building is in relatively good condition,
though it is sided in replacement particle board type sheets on the exterior, laid over the older
substantial wood structure beneath. One aluminum frame replacement slider has been added to
the building. Its integrity has been compromised.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
83
Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
Structure GZR-1: Small Barn
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure GZR-1 is a small barn. It is probably at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or more.
It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-1960), of Joe
Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-
raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The structure is not known to
be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building
is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by
Joe Zanoni (dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha
from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Structure GZR-1 is not
known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The structure’s style is typical of local farm and ranch buildings from the time period but is not a
good example of the type. It is also not an example of a master workman. GZR-1 is not
considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The GZR-1 barn retains its integrity of location, materials, design, and workmanship, but has lost
its integrity of setting, feeling, and association. The building is still composed of its original
materials – mostly wide boards and heavy timbers beneath the floor and for wall supports. The
barn has been allowed to deteriorate to a great degree, with sections of roofing gone, as well as
boards from exterior walls. The interior is filled with debris and miscellaneous items. The barn
has not been greatly modified, but is badly deteriorated, which significantly affects its integrity.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
84
Structure GZR-4: Ranch House
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Building GZR-4 is a house. It is probably at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or more. It
has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-1960), of Joe
Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-
raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). It is currently occupied. The
structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or
local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by Joe Zanoni (dairying)
who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the
1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Building GZR-4 is not known to be associated
with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore,
considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The building’s style is a vernacular style, with two more traditional types of buildings joined
together. It is not an exceptional example of a vernacular type or an example of a master
workman. The building is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The GZR-4 ranch house retains its integrity of location, but has lost its integrity of materials,
design, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. The building now appears to be two
smaller houses joined together at some time. Presumably, one of them is the original house on
the ranch. Alterations beyond the fusing of the houses include replacement siding of modern
rustic wood appearing T1-ll, which became available in the 1970s, and adding a few replacement
aluminum sliders. The house has been greatly modified over time, significantly affecting its
integrity.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
85
Structure GZR-5: Shed or Workshop
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure GZR-5 is a shed or workshop. It is probably at least 76 years old, going back to 1940
or more. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-
1960), of Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s
(dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The
structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or
local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by Joe Zanoni (dairying)
who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the
1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Structure GZR-5 is not known to be associated
with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore,
considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The structure is a plain, common ranch structure for the time period, but is not an especially
good example of one. It is not an example of a master workman. The structure is not considered
eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The GZR-5 shed or workshop retains its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, location,
and association, but has lost its integrity of setting and feeling. It is somewhat dilapidated, with
broken window and drooping roof, but otherwise retains its original fabric and many parts.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure GZR-6: Small Cabin
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Building GZR-6 is a small cabin. It is probably at least 63 years old, going back to 1953 or
more. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-1960),
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
86
of Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and
cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not
known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The
building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by Joe Zanoni (dairying)
who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the
1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Building GZR-6 is not known to be associated
with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore,
considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The small building is a cabin but is not an exceptional example of the type or an example of a
master workman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The GZR-6 cabin retains its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, location, setting, and
association, but has lost its integrity of feeling. It is somewhat dilapidated, having been allowed
to deteriorate. It is missing some of its roof shingles and its siding. Its doors and windows are
gone, leaving the interior to be exposed to weather and further decline. But it does still retain its
original materials and overall design.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure GZR-7: Storage Shed
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure GZR-7 is a storage shed. It is probably at least 63 years old, going back to 1953 or
more. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-1960),
of Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and
cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not
known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The
building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
87
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1940s, by
Joe Zanoni (dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha
from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, Structure GZR-7 is not
known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The structure style is a simple, plain utilitarian type. It is not an exceptional example of the type
or an example of a master workman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the
CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The GZR-7 storage shed retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has lost its
integrity of materials, design, workmanship, and feeling. It is in good condition, having been
well-maintained over time, with replacement composition shingle roof and plywood siding. It
does not presently have any openings other than one door on its north elevation. In the past, it
may have had more openings, which have been covered over with the later siding.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Wool Ranch
Structure WR-1: Lower Barn, Collapsed
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure WR-1 is a collapsed, moderately sized barn. It is probably at least 56 years old, as it
appears on a 1960 aerial photograph, but is not on one from 1956 (NETR 1956, 1960). It has
been rented or leased by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising),
under the ownership of the Wool family from at least 1960, and more recently of the Driscoll
family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in
history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on
the CRHR under Criterion A.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
88
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and
more recently by the Driscoll family, Structure WR-1 barn is not known to be associated with
persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not
eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The structure’s style is not well known as it is a collapsed structure now. But based on its
materials and on some observable details, the small barn or storage shed appears to have been an
ordinary, utilitarian, vernacular ranch structure. It is not a good example of a type or an example
of a master workman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The WR-1 barn has lost its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, feeling and association,
but retains its location and setting. It is composed of original materials from the period, such as
corrugated metal, lumber, heavy wood timbers, but has completely collapsed in place. Its style is
not known, but presumably was a utilitarian, basic barn type from the mid-twentieth century. Its
integrity has been completely compromised by its collapse.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Building WR-2: Ranch House
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Building WR-2 is a Ranch-style, mid-1900s house with detached garage. It is at least 63 years
old, as it appears on a 1953 aerial photograph, but is not on the 1940 topographic map (NETR
1953; USGS 1940). It has been under the ownership of the Wool family in the 1960s at least,
under rental or lease by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising),
and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be
associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is,
therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, owned
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
89
by the Wool family in the 1960s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the WR-2 house is
not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local
levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The house is a Ranch-style residence, common in the mid- to late-1900s. It is an ordinary
example of a Ranch-style house, and not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The
structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The WR-2 ranch house retains its integrity of location, and setting, but has lost its integrity of
materials, design, workmanship, feeling and association. It is now sided in replacement
aluminum, has several additions, including an outhouse that abuts the house to house the water
heater, an added section to join the garage to the house, an added bay to one corner of the rear of
the house, and an added crude heavy lumber front porch over the front entryway. A swimming
pool was added in the rear yard by 1991. The integrity of the house has been seriously
compromised by the many alterations and additions.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure WR-3: Cottage
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Building WR-3 is a vernacular-style, mid-1900s cottage. It is thought to be at least 45 years old
based on its style and materials and its absence on aerial photographs from 1953, 1956, and 1960
(NETR 1953, 1956, 1960). It has been under the ownership of the Wool family in the 1960s,
under rental or lease by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising),
and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The structure is not known to be
associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is,
therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, by the
Wool family in the 1960s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the WR-3 cottage is not
known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
90
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The house is a vernacular-style cottage, possibly constructed by the dairymen themselves or by
local carpenters. It is an ordinary example of a vernacular, mid-1900s small dwelling, and not an
extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The WR-3 cottage retains its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, feeling, association
location, and setting. The cottage retains all of its integrity and is in good condition in that
regard.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure WR-4: Upper Barn
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure WR-4 is a large, partially collapsed barn. It is thought to be at least 45 years old as it is
not shown on aerial photographs from 1956 or 1960, but is on one from 1991 and was apparently
constructed sometime between those years (NETR 1956, 1960, 1991). It has been under the
ownership of the Wool family in the 1960s, under rental, or lease by Henry Cunha from the
1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recentl y of the Driscoll family (cattle
raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national,
regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, owned
by the Wool family in the 1960s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the WR-4 barn is not
known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The barn is a plain, utilitarian style. It is an ordinary example of a vernacular, mid-1900s barn
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
91
and not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The structure is not considered eligible
for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The WR-4 barn retains its integrity of materials, location, and setting, but has lost its integrity of
design, workmanship, feeling, and association. The barn has been left in disrepair and is
therefore in bad condition now, from neglect. Its integrity has been seriously compromised as a
result.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Folger Ranch
Upper Folger Ranch Buildings
Structure UFR-1: Animal Shelter
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure UFR-1 is a metal animal shelter. It is thought to be at least 76 years old as it is shown
on the 1953 aerial photograph and on the 1940 USGS map (NETR 1953; USGS 1940). It has
been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Carter Lane in the 1950s and 1960s, of Charlie
Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, of Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in
the 1970s, and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known
to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The
building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the
1960s and by Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, the UFR-1 animal shelter is not known to be associated with persons important
historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The metal shelter is a plain, utilitarian style. It is an ordinary example of a mid-1900s shelter and
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
92
not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The structure is not considered eligible for
listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The UFR-1 structure retains its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, feeling, location,
and setting, but has lost its integrity of association. The shelter remains in good condition, with
one alteration being the addition of strips of T1-11 to the top of two elevations. Its integrity has
not been seriously compromised.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Building UFR-2: Bunk House or Hunting Cabin
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Building UFR-2 is a small dwelling, possibly a bunk house or hunting cabin. It is thought to be
at least 76 years old as it is shown on the 1953 aerial photograph and on the 1940 USGS map
(NETR 1953; USGS 1940). It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Carter Lane in
the 1950s and 1960s, of Charlie Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, of Peter
Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-
raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national,
regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the
1960s and by Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, the UFR-2 dwelling is not known to be associated with persons important
historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The small wood building is a plain, utilitarian style. It is an ordinary example of a mid-1900s
rural cabin and not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not
considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
93
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The UFR-2 building retains its integrity of location, setting, and association but has lost its
integrity of materials, design, workmanship, and feeling. The bunkhouse or cabin has had a
crude, wooden porch added to its front entrance, as well as a small room or closet added to its
northwest corner. In addition, a modern sliding glass door has been added to its south elevation,
while an older door on its east elevation has been blinded. Due to these alterations and additions,
the cabin’s integrity has been compromised.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure UFR-3: Large Barn, Collapsed
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure UFR-3 is a large barn that has partially collapsed in place. It is thought to be at least
76 years old as it is shown on the 1953 aerial photograph and on the 1940 USGS map (NETR
1953; USGS 1940). It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Carter Lane in the 1950s
and 1960s, of Charlie Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, of Peter Folger and
Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The
structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or
local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the
1960s and by Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, the UFR-3 barn is not known to be associated with persons important
historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The barn’s style is very similar to other large hay and cow-feeding barns that still remain in the
area, and within the Driscoll Ranch property. It is a plain, utilitarian style, a sort of Prairie style
barn. It is an ordinary example of a mid-1900s large barn of the Coast Range area and is not an
extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not considered eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
94
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The UFR-3 structure retains its integrity of location and setting, but has lost its integrity of
materials, design, workmanship, feeling, and association. The barn retains most of its original
materials but due to its partial collapse is in extreme disrepair and in bad condition. Due to its
neglect and collapse, the barn’s integrity has been seriously compromised.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Lower Folger Ranch
Structure LFR-1: Ranch House
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Building LFR-1 is a 1960s Ranch-style house. It is thought to be at least 50 to 56 years old as it
is shown on the 1968 aerial photograph (NETR 1968). It has been under the ownership, rental,
or lease of Carter Lane in the 1960s, of Charlie Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the
1960s, of Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently of the Driscoll
family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in
history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on
the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the
1960s and by Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, the LFR-1 dwelling is not known to be associated with persons important
historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The house is a typical example of the mid-1900s Ranch-style house, but is not an exceptional
example of one. It is not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not
considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
95
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The LFR-1 house retains its integrity of location and setting, but has lost its integrity of
materials, design, workmanship, feeling, and association. According to Aaron Hebert, the house
was very recently completed remodeled, re-sided, and generally updated. It does not now retain
its original materials. For this reason, its integrity has been compromised.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure LFR-2: Barn
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure LFR-2 is a small wooden barn for animals. It is thought to be at least 61 years old as it
is shown on the 1960 aerial photograph and may pre-date that by a few years (NETR 1960). It
has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Carter Lane in the 1950s and 1960s, of Charlie
Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, of Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in
the 1970s, and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The structure is not known
to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The
building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the
1960s and by Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, the LFR-2 barn is not known to be associated with persons important historically
at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the
CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The barn is a simple, utilitarian wooden structure, but is not an exceptional example of one. It is
not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not considered eligible for
listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
96
The LFR-2 structure retains its integrity of location and setting, but has lost its integrity of
materials, design, workmanship, feeling, and association. The barn has been subject to a few
alterations and additions over time. A shed roof, low addition has been added to the entire south
elevation of the original barn, which may have been done many years ago. Replacement siding
consisting of plywood has been placed along the north elevation. For these reasons, the barn’s
integrity has been compromised.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure LFR-3: Workshop/Shed
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure LFR-3 is a workshop or shed. It is thought to be at least 50 to 56 years old as it is
shown on the 1968 aerial photograph (NETR 1968). It has been under the ownership, rental, or
lease of Carter Lane in the 1960s, of Charlie Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the
1960s, of Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently of the Driscoll
family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in
history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on
the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the
1960s and by Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, the LFR-3 structure is not known to be associated with persons important
historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The workshop/shed is a simple, vernacular, utilitarian wooden structure, but is not an exceptional
example of one. It is not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not
considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The LFR-3 structure retains its integrity of feeling, association, location, and setting, but has lost
its integrity of materials, workmanship, and design, as it appears to have replacement siding of
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
97
plywood over much of its exterior. One large door on the east elevation and a central portion of
its west (rear) elevation retains an older, wide, vertical board siding, the west section being board
and batten. It has not been subject to alterations or additions over time. The shed retains its
integrity.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Structure LFR-4: Large Barn, Collapsed
California Register of Historic Resources criteria:
Criterion A
Structure LFR-4 is a large collapsed barn. It is thought to be at least 63 years old as it is shown
on the 1953 aerial photograph (NETR 1953). It has been under the ownership of the Driscoll
family (cattle-raising) from the 1970s or 1990s to the present. The structure is not known to be
associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is,
therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B
Though associated with and probably used by the Driscoll family, the LFR-4 structure is not
known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C
The barn is completely collapsed, but appears to be a simple, typical utilitarian wooden barn, but
is not known to be an exceptional example of one. It is not an extraordinary example of a master
craftsman. The building is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D
Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the
architectural resource.
Integrity
The LFR-4 structure retains its integrity of materials and location, but has lost its integrity of
design, workmanship, feeling, and association. It has completely collapsed in place and
therefore its integrity has been severely compromised.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
98
RECOMMENDATIONS
The architectural survey of the Project Area was completed on April 22, 2016, covering 26
standing and collapsed structures, 21 of which are historic (45 years old or more) in age and five
were modern. None of the 21 historic-age buildings are recommended as eligible for listing on
the California Register of Historical Resources. No further assessments are recommended.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
99
REFERENCES CITED
a&h llc (architecture +history, llc)
2015 Historic Resources Evaluation 6635 La Honda Road, San Mateo County, Apple Orchard
Site, Prepared for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, CA by
architecture + history, llc, San Francisco, CA.
Alley, B. F. (publisher)
1883 History of San Mateo County, California, B. F. Alley Publisher, San Francisco, CA.
Bean, W. and J. J. Rawls
1993 California: An Interpretive History. 4th Edition. McGraw Hill, NY.
Bedesem, Peter
1979 “Oil Production in San Mateo County”. Unpublished student paper in the San Mateo
County History Museum Archives.
BLM GLO (Bureau of Land Management Government Land Office)
2016 Land Grant Records Search Tool. Accessed online at
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/PatentSearch/Default.asp. Last accessed on April 30,
2016.
Bordi, George
2006 Bringing in the Hay, in La Honda Historical Society, Archives and Research, from
February 17, 2006, accessed online at http://lahonda.typepad.com/lhhs/archives-and-
research/ on April 27, 2016.
Bordi, Mary
2006 La Honda History – La Honda Store Model on Display, in La Honda Historical Society,
Archives and Research, from June 16, 2006, accessed online at
http://lahonda.typepad.com/lhhs/archives-and-research/ on April 27, 2016.
Bromfield, Davenport
1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California, 1894. Compiled and Drawn by Davenport
Bromfield, County Surveyor, Schmidt Label & Lith. Co., San Francisco.
Cady, Theron G.
1948 Bandit Built Store, in Tales of the San Francisco Peninsula, Peninsula Life Magazine, C-
T Publishers, San Carlos, CA
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
100
Casper Star Tribune
2003 Ed Sittner Obituary, in Casper Star Tribune, accessed online at http://trib.com/news/ed-
sittner/article 5820d0a6-18ec-5136-bf51-a8e3bc82f506.html on April 30, 2016.
Cloud, J. J.
1877 Official Map of San Mateo County, California, 1877. Compiled by J. J. Cloud, County
Surveyor, San Mateo County, CA.
Cloud, Roy W.
1928 History of San Gregorio, California. In The Story of San Mateo County, California. S. J.
Publishing, Chicago IL.
Denny, Edward
1913 Denny’s Pocket Map of San Mateo County, California. Edward Denny & Co. Map
Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Easton, A. S.
1868 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California, published by A. S. Easton, County
Surveyor S. M. C., San Francisco, CA.
Foss, Jr., Werner C.
1941 History of La Honda by San Mateo City College. Unpublished manuscript SM 321 in the
San Mateo County Historical Museum Archives.
Furnis, Carol Lynn
1999 From Canton Ticino to County of Sacramento: An Historical Ethnography of a Migrant
Italian-Swiss Population. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Hector, Scott
1986 La Honda Oil Field. No. TR30, Second Edition. Publication Sacramento: Division of Oil
and Gas.
Kirkpatrick, Paisley
2008 Bandit Built Store, in Slip into Something Victorian Blog, accessed online at
http://somethingvictorianblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/bandit-built-store.html on April
27, 2016.
Kneese, George A. (compiler)
1927 Official Map of San Mateo County. San Mateo County, CA
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
101
Marinacci, Barbara and Rudy Marinacci
1980 California’s Spanish Place-Names, Presidio Press, San Rafael, CA.
Moore & DePue
1878 Illustrated History of San Mateo County, California, 1878, Reprinted in 1974 by Gilbert
Richards Publications, Woodside, CA
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC,
accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
1956 Aerial photograph of Wool Ranch site, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC,
accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016.
1960a Aerial photograph of Wool Ranch site, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC,
accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016.
1960b Aerial photograph of Folger Ranch sites, Nationwide Environmental Title Research,
LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016.
1968 Aerial photograph of Folger Ranch sites, Nationwide Environmental Title Research,
LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016.
1980 Aerial photograph of Ray and Guerra-Zanoni Ranch sites, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016.
1991 Aerial photograph of Wool Ranch site, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC,
accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016.
2005 Aerial photograph of Folger and Guerra-Zanoni Ranch sites, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016.
Neuman, J. V.
1909 Official Map of San Mateo County, California, 1909. Compiled and Drawn by J. V.
Neuman, County Surveyor, W. B. Walkup & Son, San Francisco, CA.
NRHP (National Register of Historic Places)
2016 National Register of Historic Places Program: Research, Database accessed online at
www.nps.gov/nr/research on April 29, 2016.
OHP Landmarks
2016 California Historical Landmarks, San Mateo County List, accessed online at
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21520 on April 30, 2016.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
102
Polk, R. L.
1961 Polk’s San Jose (Santa Clara County, Calif.) City Directory, 1961, R. L. Polk & Co., Los
Angeles, CA.
Revolvy
2016 Rancho San Gregorio, accessed online at
www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Rancho%20San%20%Gregorio on April 30, 2016.
Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims,
Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. University Press, Berkeley, CA.
San Mateo County
1960 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, San Francisco, CA.
Schwind, Janet and the Skyline Historical Society
2914 The South Skyline Story. Skyline Historical Society.
U. S. Census
1850 1850 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
1860 1860 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
1870 1870 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
1880 1880 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
1900 1900 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
1910 1910 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
1920 1920 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
1930 1930 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
1940 1940 United States Federal Census, provided by Ancestry.com, Provo, UT.
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1902 Santa Cruz, Calif. 1:125,000 scale topographic map, United States Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior, Washington D. C.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
103
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle, United States Geological
Survey, Washington D. C.
1955 La Honda, Calif. 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, United States Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
1961 La Honda, Calif. 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, photorevised 1968, United States
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
1991 La Honda, Calif. 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, United States Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey, Denver, CO
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
104
APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
105
DESIREÉ RENEÉ MARTINEZ
Project Manager/Principal Archaeologist
EDUCATION
1999 M.A., Anthropology (Archaeology), Harvard University, Cambridge
1995 B.A., Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Martinez is a qualified archaeologist with 21 years of experience in archaeological fieldwork, research, and
curation. She has expertise in the planning, implementation, and completion of all phases of archaeological work
and has participated in archaeological investigations as a principal investigator, crew member, and tribal monitor.
She meets national standards in archaeology set by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Her experience also includes compliance with CEQA, NEPA, NHPA Sec.
106, NAGPRA, SB 18, AB 52, California General Order 131-D exemption, and other cultural resource laws. Ms.
Martinez has managed technical assessments and prepared cultural resources sections for EIR, EIS, and PEA
documents. In addition, Ms. Martinez has extensive experience consulting with Native American leaders and
community members in a variety of contexts. Finally, Ms. Martinez is at the forefront of creating and implementing
collaborative archaeological agendas at the State and National levels.
Devers-Palos Verde 500 kV No. 2 Transmission Line Project, Southern California Edison, Devers Valley,
Riverside County, CA. Provided regulatory oversight and project management regarding cultural and
paleontological resources. Collected extensive archaeological, ethnohistorical and historical information about the
use and significance of Edom Hill, located in Desert Hot Springs, and the Lakeview Mountains Cultural
Landscape, located in Lakeview, to the Southern California Native American tribes. Prepared evaluation reports
of the hill and mountains for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural
Properties. Documented findings in a written report and gave public presentations of results in a number of
professional venues. Lead In-house Consultant Archaeologist. 2011- 2015
Devers-Mirage Project, Southern California Edison, Palm Springs, Riverside County, CA. Collected extensive
archaeological, ethnohistorical and historical information about the use and significance of Garnet Hill (aka Hoon
wit ten ca va), located in Palm Springs. Evaluated hill for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as a
Traditional Cultural Property. Documented findings in a written report and gave public presentations of results in
a number of professional venues. Lead In-house Consultant Archaeologist. 2011- 2013
Historical Sites Preservation, Veterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, Los Angeles
County, CA. The undertakings involve eleven projects, divided into two construction phases for improvements to
the campus. One National Register-listed prehistoric archaeological site, the Puvungna Indian Village, is known
on the campus. Edited the MOA, NAGPRA POA and wrote portions of the Historic Resources Treatment Plan.
Archaeologist. 2015
Veterans Affairs Long Beach Health Systems, Cultural Resources Services and Native American Monitoring,
Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. Managed a variety of public works and infrastructure improvements on
the VALBHS campus. Services have included archaeological surveys, testing, archaeological monitoring,
providing and managing Gabrielino (Tongva) Native American monitoring, and compliance reporting. Native
American monitoring was provided on a rotating basis from a number of Gabrielino (Tongva) tribes as per a
Memorandum of Agreement between the VALBHS, State Historic Perseveration Office. Projects on the campus
have included: an intensive-level archaeological survey utilizing ground penetrating radar and magnetometry to
identify subsurface cultural debris, accurately map abandoned utilities, and locate a historic trash pit within the
APE; archaeological and Native American monitoring of construction activities of the Fisher House and Golf
Course project area; Principal Archaeologist. 2014-present
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
106
LYNN FURNIS, RPA
Principal Architectural Historian
EDUCATION
1999 M.A., Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno
1972 B.A., Anthropology, University of California at Davis
Ms. Furnis is a Registered Professional Archaeologist, historical archaeologist and architectural historian with 45
years of experience in the western United States. She meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Ms. Furnis is a skilled professional
who is well-versed in the compliance procedures of CEQA, Section 106 of the NHPA. As an architectural historian,
she has recorded hundreds of historic buildings and authored major architectural survey reports. Studies of built-
environment resources include archival research, field investigation, significance criteria and determinations,
assessment of impacts/effects, and management plans. Ms. Furnis has evaluated numerous historic properties/
historical resources for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of
Historic Resources (CRHR). Finally, Ms. Furnis has conducted in-depth research into the history of the Italian-
Swiss who settled in Sacramento County during the 1850s to 1880s. The Zanoni name in the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
is an Italian-Swiss name.
SELECTED PROJECTS
Historic Context for the Los Flores Ranch IWMF Landfill Project, Santa Maria, CA. Historic Context Author.
Researched the history of the Project Area, including the history of the Los Alamos Ranch and the Cat Canyon
Oil Field in Santa Barbara County, identified pertinent themes, and wrote the historic context for the larger
archaeological project and report on behalf of the City of Santa Maria.
Steele Ranch Intensive Inventory and Architectural Recordation, Reno Tahoe Airport Authority, Reno, NV.
Field Director, Architectural Recorder, Photographer. Conducted an intensive archaeological inventory of a
historic Truckee Meadows ranch site where trees, shrubs, fences, and 11 buildings were still standing. Assisted
in the detailed recording and documenting of all 11 standing buildings through the use of notes, measurements,
and black and white photography. Co-authored the final inventory and architectural data recovery report.
Troy Camp Inventory and Public Interpretation Project, Nye County, NV. Cultural Resources Inventory and
Creation of Five Interpretive Products on behalf of the U.S. Forest Service. Field Director for Class III
Inventory of the historic (1870s) Troy mining/milling camp in Troy Canyon, Nevada. Primary author of the
resultant inventory report, as well as creator of a middle school level lesson plan about Troy. Co-producer of a
PowerPoint slide presentation and accompanying narration, a web page for the U.S. Forest Service regarding
Troy, and a large interpretive exhibit. Also, a brochure was produced by other personnel about Troy and its
place in central Nevada mining.
Thousand Springs Power Plant Project, Sierra Pacific Power Company, near Wells, Elko County, NV. The
project involved preliminary environmental impact studies for a proposed coal-burning power plant requiring
survey and evaluation of standing structures and archaeological sites within a 315-square-mile area, to assess
viewshed impacts on standing ranch-related buildings.
Marshall Gold Discovery Project, Coloma, El Dorado County, CA. As Crew Chief, conducted survey and
inventory of all historic/prehistoric cultural resources at Marshall Gold Discovery S. H. P., Coloma, California
on behalf of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The gold discovery site was a mining camp,
possessing substantial historic resources.
I-80 and US 395 South Architectural Survey and Evaluation, Reno and Sparks, NV. Field Director, Researcher,
and Report Co-Author. Defined the architectural Area of Potential Effects (APE) for a 10-mile segment of I-80
through Sparks and Reno, Nevada, as well as a 2-mile segment of US 395. Directed the field locating,
recording, and photographing of more than 200 buildings and structures within the APE. Completed more than
200 Nevada State Historic Preservation building forms and researched the histories and associations of each
building. Co-authored a full inventory report including extensive historic context, methods, building
descriptions, and resource evaluations, as well as a complete set of maps for the 12-mile long corridor.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
107
SAMANTHA SCHELL
Archaeologist
EDUCATION
1994 B.A., Anthropology (Physical), University of California, Berkeley
SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Schell has 20 years of experience in cultural resource management in California. Her wide ranging experience
includes both prehistoric and historic period archaeology. Ms. Schell meets national standards in archaeology set by
the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She conducts
surveys, monitoring, excavation at the testing and data recovery levels, prehistoric and historical site recording,
prehistoric and historical artifact identification and preparation for curation. Ms. Schell has participated in numerous
studies and prepared compliance reports. She has conducted archival research at local repositories and collected oral
histories from the families associated with California ranches. Ms. Schell, based on her family’s central California
ranching history, has access the larger network of California ranching families to gather information regarding the
ranching history of the project and surrounding areas.
SELECTED PROJECTS
Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. The ROHO documents history
through carefully researched audio and video interviews and transcribed oral histories. Interviews are conducted
with the goal of a full and accurate account of events central to the lives of the interviewee. Ms. Schell worked
with researchers in preparation of the interviews, and then synthesized the product through transcribing the
recorded interviews.
South Access to Golden Gate Bridge–Doyle Drive P3 Project, FHWA/Caltrans District 4, San Francisco
County Transportation Authority, San Francisco, CA. Cultural resources monitoring of road replacement
impacting this National Historic Landmark--the Presidio of San Francisco, National Park Service-Golden Gate
National Recreation Area. Work areas include the previously demolished Pan Pacific International Exposition
buildings from 1915 and Presidio military installation remains. Discoveries have included isolated artifacts,
building remains, foundations, wood stave conduits, the Mason Street Railroad tracks, incinerator deposits,
portions of the Presidio Ravine Creek Dump, and retaining walls. NHPA Section 106/CEQA compliance. Sub
Flatiron. Archaeological Monitor. 2015
Exposition Light Rail Transit Phase II, Exposition Rail Construction Authority/Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles, CA. The project involves extension of the Expo Light
Rail system for 8 miles from Culver City to Santa Monica, including construction of seven stations, grade
separations, and associated facilities. Much of the project alignment replaces a historic electric railroad known
as the Santa Monica Air Line (SMAL) and was constructed in the existing SMAL right-of-way. During
monitoring, eighty-two features associated with the rail line and sixty-eight artifacts were recorded. Contributed
to Monitoring Report. Sub to URS Corporation. Archaeologist. 2015
Ansel Adams Gallery Complex Rehabilitation Project, Yosemite National Park, Mariposa, CA. Conducted
test pits around historic era buildings for foundation improvements. Osteologist/Archeological
Technician. 2011
North Area Historic-Era Sites Evaluation, Western Area Power Authority. Tasks included site descriptions,
quality control, graphics, and contributions to report production. Archaeologist. 2014
Good Earth Phase II, Good Earth Grocery Store. Conducted test pits around historic era buildings for
foundation improvements. Osteologist/Archeological Technician. 2011
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
108
TIM SPILLANE
Archaeologist
EDUCATION
2010 Master of Arts in Text and Material Culture, Roehampton University, London, UK
2008 Dual Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology (Archaeology Emphasis) & English Literature San Francisco State
University.
SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Spillane has more than seven years of experience working with agencies in the public and private sectors,
developing particular expertise in the historical and prehistoric archaeology of the San Francisco Bay Area. He
regularly serves as field director and lead archaeological/paleontological monitor; identifies historic artifacts and
features; documents all resources encountered during construction in daily logs; and completes DPR forms for newly
discovered sites. A major recent project involved identification, collection, processing, researching, and cataloging
nearly 5,000 isolated historic and prehistoric artifacts.
SELECTED PROJECTS
Apple Campus 2 Project, Milpitas, Santa Clara County, CA. Monitored a variety of construction activities
associated with the campus development. Identified paleontological resources as well as historic archaeological
artifacts and features. Took digital photos and UTM points, analyzed and interpreted soil profiles, and produced
daily monitoring reports. Lead Archeological/Paleontological Monitor. 2014
South Main Street Apartments Project, Shea Properties, Milpitas, Santa Clara County, CA. Monitored a wide
range of ground-disturbing activities at an Ohlone burial site and historic Rancheria. Documented all resources
encountered during construction in daily logs, taking digital photos and UTM points, and mapped out their
placement in ArcGIS. Produced daily monitoring reports. Worked with MLDs from Archaeor, Rick Thompson
and Vincent Medina. Archaeological Monitor. 2013
Presidio Parkway Project, San Francisco, San Francisco County, CA. Monitors construction activities associated
with Presidio Parkway tunnel, roadway, and viaduct placement, identifies historic artifacts and features, takes
digital photos and UTM points, coordinates with construction staff, as well as produces daily monitoring reports.
Lead Archeological Monitor. 2013-present
Indigenous Archaeological Overview and Assessment, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties, CA.
Performed a broad overview and assessment of all known indigenous archaeological sites within the legislative
bounds of the GGNRA, which include resources in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. The scope of
the project has involved individual site visits for the purpose of carrying out vital condition assessments which
will serve as the basis of management recommendations to be included in a final overview report. Completed
DPR forms for new sites discovered; updated NPS ASMIS records for all resources assessed; and composed an
overview report which discusses the historic and scientific significance of the indigenous sites managed by the
Park, outlined critical areas requiring focused survey, and provided a source for the design of future studies and
management approaches. Archaeologist. 2013-2014
Willits Bypass Project, Willits, Caltrans, Mendocino County, CA. Monitored numerous construction activities
associated with a highway bypass in the area of numerous prehistoric Pomo sites. Conducted pedestrian surveys,
identified historic and prehistoric artifacts and features, took digital photos and UTM points, as well as completed
daily monitoring reports. Processed and cataloged lithic recoveries and served as part of the field crew for data
recovery at a previously undocumented prehistoric site. Archeological Monitor/Technician II. 2013-2014
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
109
ANDRE-JUSTIN C. SIMMONS
Archaeologist
EDUCATION
2014 M. A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton
2010 B. A., Anthropology and History, California State University, Fullerton, graduated cum laude
2007 A. A., History, Citrus College, Glendora, CA
SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Simmons is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and cross-trained paleontologist with extensive field
experience in survey, monitoring, faunal analysis, and excavation. He exceeds the qualifications required by the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Further, he is
certified in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and specializes in ESRI’s ArcGIS software. He regularly
prepares Area of Potential Effects maps in coordination with Caltrans, as well as contributing to HPSR/ASR/HRER
technical reports. Mr. Simmons is responsible for supervising GIS data collection and management, geospatial
analysis, and the production of GIS maps and databases for large and small-scale projects. Mr. Simmons is well
versed in CEQA and NHPA Section 106 compliance procedures and reporting. He has expertise in laboratory
preparation and analysis gathered from internships at CSUF, volunteer experience at the Page Museum at the La
Brea Tar Pits, and several projects conducted by Cogstone. His key research interests include settlement patterns and
use of space among Paleoindians, the American Southwest, early historic and prehistoric California, and historical
Mexico. He has over six years of experience in California Archaeology and paleontological monitoring along with
more than 24 hours of paleontology training and over four years of GIS experience.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Bodie Hills FY14-15 Cultural Resources Survey, Desert Restoration Project, Bureau of Land Management,
Bishop Field Office, Mono County, CA. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory survey of 2,721 acres of BLM
land identified for vegetation management. Work includes records search, intensive pedestrian survey,
archaeological resource inventory and NRHP site evaluations, and a technical report. The survey area is located
between the Town of Bridgeport and Lee Vining. Field Director. 2014-2015
Fort Irwin, U.S. Army National Training Center/GSA Region 9, San Bernardino County, CA. Class III
Cultural Resources Inventory Survey and National Register Evaluation of Archaeology Sites. Prepared GIS
maps of sites and artifacts recorded during an intensive 9,309 acre archaeological field survey. Prepared GIS
survey coverage maps. The project involved survey, site recording and site evaluation to Section 106 standards.
The contract also involves biological surveys of the area which will be conducted by Louis Berger Group in
Spring 2015. Archaeology Field Technician/GIS Specialist. 2014-2015
Fort Irwin, U.S. Army National Training Center/GSA Region 9, San Bernardino County, CA. Class III
Cultural Resources Inventory Survey and National Register Evaluation of Archaeology Sites. Prepared GIS
maps of sites and artifacts recorded during an intensive 14,367 acre archaeological field survey. Prepared GIS
survey coverage maps. Archaeology Field Technician/GIS Specialist. 2012-2013
Fogarty Substation Construction, near Lake Elsinore, CA. Cultural Resources Monitor. Performed monitoring
during construction activities for new electrical substation. 2011
Longboat Solar I and II, EDF Renewable Energy, Barstow and Lenwood, San Bernardino County, CA.
Prepared GIS maps for inclusion in Cultural Resources Phase I and Extended Phase I studies (Phase I) and
supplemental studies (Phase II) to support MND for this ~235-acre site. The project involved archaeological
and paleontological resources records search, Sacred Lands search, NAHC consultation. Sub to
Environmental Intelligence. Field Technician/GIS Specialist. 2014-ongoing
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
110
SARAH NAVA
Archaeologist/Cross-Trained Paleontologist
and GIS Technician
EDUCATION
2013 Archaeology Field Program, Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Project, California State
University, Northridge, RPA Scholarship Recipient
2013 GIS Certification Program, Southwestern Community College
2008 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach
SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Nava is a dual-qualified archaeologist/paleontologist with six years of cultural resource management
experience. As a field technician, crew chief, and geospatial technician, she has conducted monitoring, survey, site
recording, and excavation. Her laboratory activities include artifact sorting, data entry, and generating site location
maps. She specializes in using geographical information systems in cultural resource management and archaeology.
She uses data collected in the field to analyze through GIS and software technologies. She has completed over 120
hours of cultural resource management workshops. She has presented research data and conclusions at professional
conferences. Her professional memberships include the Society for American Archaeology and Society for
California Archaeology.
SELECTED PROJECTS
Caltrans District 6, On-Call Paleontology (06A1786), Merced, Madera, Tulare, Kings, and Kern Counties,
CA. Contributor to User Guide Book for the Fossil Sensitivity Inventory Link (FOSIL) Geospatial Database,
responsible for producing a GIS training guide Sub to Parsons. Geospatial Technician. 2014
Caltrans District 6, On-Call Paleontology (06A1320), Merced, Madera, Tulare, Kings, and Kern Counties,
CA. SR 99 Arboleda Drive Interchange widening: sorted and documented collection of 1,667 late Pleistocene
fossils, including a mammoth, recovered from 128 localities. SR 41 Kettleman City widening: conducted
paleontological monitoring during construction. Assisted with preparation and identification of the 800
vertebrate, invertebrate and plant fossils recovered during paleontological monitoring for the widening and
rehabilitation of an 8.5 mile segment of the highway. Sub to URS Corporation. Paleontology
Monitor/Laboratory Technician. 2013
Exposition Light Rail Phase 2, Exposition Transit Authority, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, Culver City to Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, CA. Conducted archaeological/paleontological
monitoring during construction of multiple stations, tracks and utility relocations. Field Technician. Sub to URS.
2013
Perris Valley Line Project, Metrolink, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside County, CA.
The project involved a 24-mile extension of the Metrolink 91 Line extending the connection from Riverside
through Moreno Valley to Perris. Provided paleontological monitoring for construction of four new stations,
upgrading associated track and utility relocations. Sub to HDR Engineering. 2013
Metropole Vault Replacements, Southern California Edison, Avalon, Catalina Island, Los Angeles County,
CA. Conducted archaeological monitoring and coordinated with Native American monitors during ground
disturbing activities of a 30,000 s.f. APE that resulted in an excavation. The site is located in proximity to the
original Tongva tribal village on the island. Archaeological Field Technician. 2014
Fort Irwin National Training Center, San Bernardino, CA. Cultural Resources Inventory Survey of 14,316
Acres and National Register Evaluation of Archaeology Sites. Archaeological Field Technician. 2013
NAVFAC Atlantic Division, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Kern County, CA. Section 110 Intensive
Archaeological Inventory on Ranges. Conduct Section 110 archaeological inventory and site recording; Primary
Client: Cultural Resource Analysts. Crew Chief. 2015
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
111
APPENDIX B. SOURCES CONSULTED
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
112
Table 3. Appendix B-1: Detailed Research Results- Libraries and Museums Visited
Libraries and Museums
Visited Date Visited Visit Results
Bancroft Library,
University of California,
Berkeley
April 28, 2016 Viewed the Official Map of San Mateo County,
California. Compiled and drawn by Davenport
Bromfield, County Surveyor, 1894.
Viewed “Younger Brothers” by Carl W. Breihan.
Published by the Naylor Company, San Antonio,
1961.
“The Italian Swiss Colonies in California” by
Maurice Edmond Perret, Master’s Thesis, 1942.
For J.A. Folger Coffee Was Pure Gold. J.A. Folger
and Company History Pamphlet, 1978.
Main Library, University of
California, Berkeley
April 28,
2016
Viewed “The Last of the Great Outlaws, the Story of
Cole Younger” by Homer Croy. Published by Duell,
Sloan and Pearce, NY, 1956.
Earth Sciences and Map
Library, University of
California, Berkeley
April 28,
2016
Official Map of San Mateo County, Compiled and
Drawn by Geo. A. Kneese, County Surveyor, 1927.
Viewed Denny’s pocket map of San Mateo County
California, c. 1913.
Folgers Coffee Company April 28,
2016
Emailed Folgers Coffee Company to request
any family history resources. They replied
4/29/2016 indicating the company no longer has
ties with the Folger family and they included a
link the Folger Stable.
San Mateo County History
Museum Archives
May 3, 2016 Viewed “History of La Honda” by Werner Foss,
College of San Mateo, Student Manuscript, 1941.
Viewed “The Lumbering Industry in San Mateo
County, by A.H. Nicoli, College of San Mateo,
Student Manuscript, 1940.
Viewed the Obituaries for Norma Younger and
Aileen Zanoni.
Viewed “Cattle Brands of San Mateo County”
College of San Mateo, Student Manuscript.
Viewed “The South Skyline Story” by Janet
Schwind and The Skyline Historical Society,
Redwood City, 2015
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
113
Table 4. Appendix B-2: Detailed Contact and Research Results- People Contacted
People Contacted Original Date
Contacted Response
Don Hanna April 24, 2016 Called and talked to Don Hanna
about some of the equipment that
Lynn Furnis photographed during
survey as well as dairying and cattle
raising.
Paisley Kirkpatrick April 26-29, 2016 Emailed April 26, 2016. She
emailed with genealogical
information about her family.
Jeanette Modena April 26, 2016 Called April 26, 2016. Descendent
of Henry Cunha. She did confirm
that the Sears Ranch was not the
same place as the Ray Ranch, but
concluded that she was very busy
and did not have time to volunteer.
Judy Wilson April 29, 2016 Called on the phone April 29, 2016.
Judy provided the names of
potential informants: Charles
Bettencourt, Bonnie Rapley, Danny
Coy, Gary Woodhams, Mary Bordi.
Judy Provided many insights about
life on the ranch from the 1950s to
present. She lives in a ranch built by
John Sears in 1862 which Cole
Younger helped build.
Bonnie Rapley April 30, 2016 Called, the number was incorrect.
Gary Woodhams April 30, 2016 Called and left a voice mail.
Mary Bordi April 30, 2016 Called and left a voice mail. She
returned my call May 1, 2016. Mary
provided information about the
timber and oil industries. Suggested
Frank Stanger as a source of local
history.
Charles Bettencourt April 30, 2016 Called and left a voice mail. He
returned my call May 1, 2016.
Charles provided information about
the Folger Ranch history.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
114
APPENDIX C. ADDENDUM
(Originally submitted to Aaron Hebert, Project Manager, on June 20, 2016 as a letter report.)
1
June 20, 2016
From: Lynn Furnis, Architectural Historian
To: Aaron Hebert, Project Manager
RE: Letter Report with additions for Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey and Evaluation Report
Aaron,
As you will see below, I have assembled the additional research Cogstone completed after submitting our draft
report Architectural Survey and Evaluation Report for Driscoll Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo County,
California by Lynn Furnis, in May, 2016. It is divided into a few sections, the major piece being the ownership
history of the Wool Ranch. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from us.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
2
INTRODUCTION
Following the completion and submission of Cogstone’s draft version of Architectural Survey
and Evaluation Report for Driscoll Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo County, California (Furnis
2016), additional historical research was conducted in order to more fully address questions
posed by the Historic Resources Advisory Board of San Mateo County (HRAB). The Board met
with representatives from Cogstone and from the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at
their May 18th meeting to discuss the Driscoll Ranch project.
Additional historical background information was gathered and is presented in this letter report.
Useful and relevant information was found, but none of it changes the conclusions or
recommendations made in the final Cogstone report (Furnis 2016). It is submitted in the form of
a letter report, to be included as part of the Final version of the Architectural Survey and
Evaluation Report for Driscoll Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo County, California (Furnis
2016).
ADDITIONAL HISTORIC RESEARCH RESULTS
DAIRYING AND CATTLE RANCHING IN SAN MATEO COUNTY
During the second half of the 19th century, dairying was prominent on the peninsula. For those
dairies close to San Francisco, fresh milk was the main product, as it could be transported
quickly enough to consumers. For dairies on the lower peninsula and coast, butter and cheese
were the primary products, as they did not require refrigeration for shipping to San Francisco
(California Cattlemen 1966:18). After World War I, beef cattle began to be introduced to San
Mateo County for grazing. While a few had been there before, only in the 1920s were they
brought in in large numbers. Dairying continued but began a steady decline from the 1940s to
the 1960s. Dairy cattle had numbered about 12,000 in 1941, but by 1964 were only 2,000 in the
county. Conversely, beef cattle reached their height in 1958, at approximately 7,000, where they
stayed until at least 1964.
The ranches within the Driscoll Ranch portion of the Open Space Preserve all began with
grazing during the Mexican period, with grazing and dairying being pursued during the mid- to
late-1800s. During this time, Irish and Italian-Swiss immigrants, and Euroamericans occupied
the land. In later years, Portuguese immigrants also conducted dairying. All raised hay and oats,
and some barley, as well. The Zanonis, Cunhas, Manuel Alexander, Charlie Bettencourt, Peter
Faber and others were dairymen from the early to mid-twentieth century, while some of them
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
3
switched to beef cattle in later years. When the Driscoll Ranch was established, beef cattle were
being grazed to the exclusion of dairying. As of 1965, there were an estimated 100 cattle
ranches in San Mateo County (California Cattlemen: 18).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT HENRY CUNHA
Henry Enos Cunha leased land from the Guerra and Wool families for about 30 years, from the
1950s to the 1980s, working the Ray, Guerra-Zanoni, and Wool ranches during that time (Judy
Wilson, personal communication, April 29, 2016). Cunha was born in Half Moon Bay in 1922
and died in 1999 at the age of 76 in La Honda. In addition to having a wife and four daughters,
Cunha was active in local organizations such as the Local 4-H clubs, the Native Sons of the
Golden West, and was a supporter of the Half Moon Bay and Pescadero Societies of the Divine
Holy Spirit (I. D. E. S.) – a Portuguese organization (San Mateo County Times 1999:75-425).
ADDITIONAL SEALE/WOOL RANCH HISTORY
The Seale/Wool Ranch is located in the north-central section of the former Driscoll Ranch
property, in Sections 4 and 9 (Furnis 2016: Figure 2). As with the other Project Area ranches, the
Wool Ranch first belonged to Mexicans during the Mexican Period in Upper California.
According to a legal county document from November 26, 1855, one league (~3 miles) of land in
the Rancho San Gregorio was granted to Salvador Castro by Francisco and Encarnacion
Rodrigues in previous years (Abstract of Title 1909:50, 51). During the American period, in
1855, Castro entered into a bond agreement whereby Andrew Yates agreed to pay Castro $6,000
within 12 months or Yates would sell a certain tract of land, one league in size. Yates essentially
mortgaged the land in order to pay back Castro at this same time. On December 6, 1856, Castro
transferred the mortgage to Henry Wilkins, enabling him to try to recoup the $6,000 and to keep
the funds for his own use if successful (Abstract of Title 1909:54) (See Table 1, below).
On March 3, 1858, Franklin Todd deeded to Henry W. Seale, for the sum of $450, a tract of land
95 acres in extent and located within Section 4, of Township 7S, Range 4W. This was part of the
Rancho San Gregorio property (Abstract of Title 1909:104). On August 4, 1863, Henry W.
Seale was granted the deed to 1114.30 acres of land by Lloyd Tevis, for $5,000 (Abstract of Title
1909:82, 83, 93). The record noted that this was the same acreage that had been conveyed to
James W. Bell by Gustave Touchard. Lloyd Tevis acquired the acreage from James Bell prior to
1863. For $5.00, Henry W. Seale deeded to Joseph Buchannan Seale (relationship unknown)
this same 1114.30 acres on August 31, 1866 (Abstract of Title 1909:93).
A parcel consisting of 120 acres was patented to Helen Schultz, widow of a veteran Peter
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
4
Schultz, who fought in the War of 1812. She assigned 110.47 acres of the original 120 to
William Wilson in 1867 (Abstract of Title 1909:103, 104). The parcel given to Wilson
eventually was part of the Seale Ranch. Later in 1867, William Wilson received an additional
patent nearby for 51.35 acres from the U.S. General Land Office.
On April 19, 1870, Joseph Buchannan Seale deeded back to Henry W. Seale the 1114.30 acres
that Henry Seale had sold to him in 1866 (Abstract of Title 1909:94). Henry paid $1,500 for the
property. The 1868 Official Map of San Mateo County shows property belonging to Henry
Seale that is 1114 acres in extent (Easton 1868). By 1877, he owned the 1114 acres plus another
62 acres located along the eastern flank of Section 4 of Township 7 S, Range 4 W (Cloud 1877).
In 1888, Henry W. Seale was granted a deed from Thomas Hennessey for 200 acres within
sections 3 and 4 of Township 7 S, Range 4 W, for the sum of $10.00 (Abstract of Title
1909:110).
On May 23, 1890, the Seale property, now in the estate of the deceased Henry W. Seale, was
distributed to Thomas Seale. The Seale Ranch amounted to 1314.30 acres at this time and it is
depicted on the 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County (Bromfield 1894). During that same
year, Thomas Seale entered into a lease agreement with Natale Fry, for 1500 acres, to be leased
for a period of five years and for $1500 per every six months (Abstract of Title 1909:95). The
lease was to be in effect from late 1891 through 1896.
In 1897, Thomas Seale began leasing 1500 acres, possibly the same 1500 acres to James and
Barnado Zanoni for the purposes of farming and dairying (Abstract of Title 1909:96). Fry’s
lease would have been up by this time, so the Zanoni Brothers likely took over working the same
land. According to George Bordi, Joe Zanoni was raised on the Wool Ranch, probably in the
1920s and 1930s. Joe leased adjacent property from the Guerras in the 1940s (G. Bordi 2006).
The 1909 county map names Thomas Seale as property owner (Furnis 2016: Figures 6-9;
Neuman 1909). But in July of 1908, a decree of distribution was issued regarding the estate of
Thomas Seale, who was then deceased (Abstract of Title 1909:118). The entire estate was
distributed to Alfred and Mabel Seale, the son and daughter of Thomas, including approximately
1314 acres of land in San Mateo County [all of it within the Driscoll Ranch Project Area]. In the
following year, Alfred Seale and his wife Grace granted power of attorney to C. L. Smith for the
purpose of executing “a deed conveying their property – as follows:
That portion of San Gregorio Rancho described on the County Map as Seale
Ranch, containing 1,300 acres of land, more or less, said land lying Westerly of
the Hughes Ranch and Northerly of the Spring Ranch in San Mateo County, State
of California” (Abstract of Title 1909:119).
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
5
A few days later, in July, 1909, the Seales and Albert’s sister Mabel (now Mabel S. Laumeister)
deeded 1293.52 acres of land to Emilia D. Silva (Abstract of Title 1909:121). This transaction
ended the Seale Ranch era and began a new one at what is now known as Wool Ranch
By 1927, Peter Faber owned the ranch and was a dairyman who used it for haying and pasturage
for dry stock, as he also owned a commercial dairy in Palo Alto (Kneese 1927). The 1927
Official Map of San Mateo County and the Half Moon Bay 1940 USGS topographic map show
no buildings or structures at the current location of the Wool Ranch in those years (Furnis 2016:
Figure 1; Kneese 1927; USGS 1940). However, the 1953 aerial photograph does show the
house, barns and other buildings at the current location, along what was known as “Seale Road”
on some maps (Furnis 2016: Figure 15; Bromfield 1894). It is possible the buildings were in
existence prior to 1940, as the USGS topographic maps were sometimes years behind in
reflecting built resources on the ground. George Bordi’s account of Joe Zanoni being raised on
the Wool Ranch property certainly suggests that a ranch house existed on the Wool Ranch
property (G. Bordi 2006). Since the Zanoni Brothers leased the Seale Ranch from Henry Seale
in the late 1890s to early 1900s, this makes sense.
Following the Faber occupancy, A. J. and D. E. Wool owned the ranch, as well as other
properties to the north. They are shown on the 1960 county map (San Mateo County 1960). In
the 1960s, A. J. Wool was a member of the San Mateo County Cattlemen’s Association and
sponsored an article on the history of San Mateo County (California Cattleman 1966:16). In the
article, A. J. Wool was listed as a resident of La Honda. The Henry Cunha family leased the
Wool Ranch for 30 years, from the 1950s to the 1980s (Judy Wilson, personal communication,
April 29, 2016). The ranch buildings are shown in aerial photographs from 1953, 1956, and
1960 (Furnis 2016: Figures 15-17). They used the property for dairying and growing hay and
oats, and may have seasonally occupied the house. Sometime during the 1970s to 1990s, the
property was acquired by Rudy Driscoll Jr.
Table 1 shows the succession of property owners and transactions regarding the Seale, Silva, and
Wool ranches.
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
6
Table 1. Chain of Ownership and Acquisition of the Seale/Wool Ranch
Grantor Grantee Date Acreage or $$ Type of
Transaction
Francisco &
Encarnacion
Rodrigues
Salvador Castro November
26, 1855
One league
(approximately
1920 acres)
Deed
Salvador Castro Andrew I. Yates November
26, 1855
$6,000.00 Bond
Salvador Castro Andrew I. Yates November
26, 1855
One league Mortgage
Salvador Castro Henry Wilkins December 6,
1856
$6,000.00 Mortgage
transfer
Franklin Todd Henry W. Seale March 3,
1858
$450.00 for 95 acres
in T7 S, Range 4W,
Sec. 4
Deed
Gustave
Touchard
James W. Bell Pre-1863 1,114.30 acres Deed?
James W. Bell Lloyd Tevis? Pre-1863 1,114.30 acres Deed?
Lloyd Tevis Henry W. Seale August 4,
1863
$5,000.00 for
1,114.30 acres
Deed
Henry W. Seale Joseph Buchannan
Seale
August 31,
1866
$5.00 for 1,114.30
acres
Deed
U. S.
Government
William Wilson, as
assigned by Helen
Schultz
February 6,
1867
120 acres to Helen,
110.47 of which
was assigned to
William
Patent
U. S.
Government
William Wilson November
14, 1867
51.35 acres Patent
Joseph
Buchannan Seale
Henry W. Seale April 19,
1870
$1,500.00 for
1,114.30 acres
Deed
U. S.
Government
Franklin Todd November
10, 1870
162.60 acres in five
lots in Section 4
Patent
Franklin Todd Peter Doyle July 24,
1873
$600.00 for 162.60
acres in five lots in
Section 4
Mortgage
Franklin Todd George Wentworth December
22, 1874
126 acres in five
lots in Section 4
Mortgage
Thomas
Hennessey
Henry W. Seale March 5,
1888
$10.00 for 200 acres Deed
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
7
Estate of Henry
W. Seale
Thomas Seale May 23,
1890
1,314.30 acres Decree of
Distribution
Thomas Seale Natale Fry August 7,
1890
$1,500 per 6 months
for 1,500 acres
Lease, 5-year
Thomas Seale James and Barnado
Zanoni
November 1,
1897
$4,400 for 1,500
acres
Lease, 5-year
Estate of Thomas
Seale
Alfred Seale and
Mabel Seale
July 3, 1908 1,314 acres more or
less
Decree of
Distribution
Alfred Seale and
Grace Seale
C. L. Smith June 23,
1909
1,300 acres more or
less
Power of
Attorney
Alfred & Grace
Seale & Mabel S.
Laumeister
Emilia D. Silva July 6, 1909 $10.00 for 1293.52
acres
Deed
? Peter Faber Pre-1927 1,314 acres more or
less
?
? A. J. & D. E. Wool Post-1940,
Pre-1960
1,314 acres more or
less
?
A. J. & D. E.
Wool
Henry Cunha 1950s-1980s 1,314 acres more or
less
Lease
A. J. & D. E.
Wool
Driscoll Family 1980s or
1990s
1,314 acres more or
less
?
Driscoll Ranch Architectural Survey Final
8
REFERENCES CITED
Abstract of Title
1909 Abstract of Title, Made at the Request of Alfred Seale, Esq., The Abstract of Title
Company of San Mateo County, Redwood City, California.
Bromfield, Davenport
1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California, 1894. Compiled and Drawn by Davenport
Bromfield, County Surveyor, Schmidt Label & Lith. Co., San Francisco.
Cloud, J. J.
1877 Official Map of San Mateo County, California, 1877. Compiled by J. J. Cloud, County
Surveyor, San Mateo County, CA.
Easton, A. S.
1868 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California, published by A. S. Easton, County
Surveyor S. M. C., San Francisco, CA.
Furnis, Lynn
2016 Architectural Survey and Evaluation Report for Driscoll Ranch near La Honda, San
Mateo County, California, Prepared for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los
Altos, CA by Cogstone Resources Management, Inc., Orange, CA.
Kneese, George A. (compiler)
1927 Official Map of San Mateo County. San Mateo County, CA
Neuman, J. V.
1909 Official Map of San Mateo County, California, 1909. Compiled and Drawn by J. V.
Neuman, County Surveyor, W. B. Walkup & Son, San Francisco, CA.
San Mateo County
1960 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, San Francisco, CA.
San Mateo County Times
1999 San Mateo County Times, Obituaries, 75-425, Tuesday, February 2, 1999 issue. On file
at San Mateo County History Museum, Redwood City, CA.
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle, United States Geological
Survey, Washington D. C.
123
APPENDIX D. SITE FORMS
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 15 *Resource Name or #: Ray’s Ranch
P1. Other Identifier: Driscoll Ranch
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Mateo County
and (P2b and P2c or P2d).
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: La Honda, Calif. Date: T 7 S ;R 4 W; of unsectioned Sec. 15; MD B.M.
c. Address: City: La Honda Zip: 94020
d. UTM: Zone: 10 S; 0563343mE/ 4131451mN (G.P.S.) to approximate center
e. Other Locational Data: APN No.078-290-030 Elevation: 560-680 ft amsl. To access the site, travel west on State Highway
84 from Woodside, California for 8 miles, to La Honda, California. Then turn right (northwest) onto Sears Ranch Road and
proceed for approximately 0.70 mile to a left fork road. Proceed to the left proceeding northwest, then southwest to the ranch
buildings another 0.30 mile further. These are a mile northwest of the locked entry gate at the southeast entrance to the La Honda
Open Space Preserve.
*P3a. Description: The Ray Ranch complex currently is composed of ten buildings and structures. Included are two large open-
sided barns for feeding cattle, two corrals (one round and one rectangular), and one plywood garden shed that are considered less
than 45 years old. One barn and both corrals are present but are not further described, nor evaluated because they are not yet 45
years old. The two barns, shown as RR-1 and RR-9 on the sketch map were in place by 1980 and the corrals (RR-3 and RR-4)
were not constructed until after 1980, based on aerial photographs (NETR 1980). The garden shed is not shown on the figure, but
stands at the edge of the yard just southeast of the house (RR-6). (See Continuation Sheet for more text).
*P3b. Resource Attributes:
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo:
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
*P8. Recorded by:
Lynn Furnis
Cogstone Resource Management
1518 W. Taft Ave
Orange, CA 92685
*P9. Date Recorded:
April 20-21, 2016
*P10. Survey Type:
Architectural survey
*P11. Report Citation:
Architectural Survey and
Evaluation Report for Driscoll
Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo
County, California (Furnis 2016)
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 2 of 15 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # RR-2
B1. Historic Name: unknown
B2. Common Name: Large storage shed
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: abandoned
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular utilitarian
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1953 according to aerial photographs (NETR 1953) and possibly as
early as 1940 (USGS 1940). Its remaining floor and interior wall structural members are composed of large timber, with boards 1
by 12 inch in size. In later years, probably in the 1960s or 1970s, the exterior was re-sided in particle-board type sheets.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: corrals, fences, road, barns, pasture
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: large shed Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure RR-2 is a large storage shed or workshop. It is at least 63 years old and quite possibly at least 76 years
old, going back to 1940. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra, or Filamena Guerra (1920s to
1960), of Manuel Alexander in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying, then cattle raising),
and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known, however, to be associated with events
important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by Manuel
Alexander (dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and
more recently by the Driscoll family, Structure RR-2 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national,
regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: RR-2 is a basic, plain, utilitarian ranch structure, a common and large example, but not an especially good example
of its type or an example of a master workman. Structure RR-2 is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion
C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The RR-2 structure retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has lost its integrity of materials,
workmanship, design, and feeling. The building is currently in a state of partial collapse. Much of the roof has caved in, falling in
on itself. It is sided in particle board type sheets on the exterior, which is replacement siding. Beneath the current siding, the
bones of the structure are visible and they are substantial, old lumber, beginning with the flooring and joists. Modifications to and
deterioration of the structure is substantial. Its integrity is seriously
compromised. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing
under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 25, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 3 of 15 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # RR-5
B1. Historic Name: barn
B2. Common Name: barn
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Barn
*B6. Construction History: The structure was constructed by 1940, according to the USGS topographic map for that year (USGS
1940). Probably in the 1960s or 1970s, the structure was re-sided in particle-board type sheets, replacing original wood boards.
Other modifications have occurred as well over the years.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: road, corrals, pasture, fences, gates, sheds
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching; Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: barn Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure RR-5 is a large barn, most likely used for equipment storage. It is at least 76 years old, going back to 1940
or longer. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s-1960), of Manuel
Alexander (1940s) (dairying), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the
Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional
or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s-1960), by Manuel Alexander (dairying) who rented
Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll
family, Structure RR-5 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The barn is a common barn style for central and coastal California, but is not an especially good example of the type
or an example of a master workman. The barn is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The RR-5 barn retains its integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, but has lost its integrity of materials,
workmanship, and design. The structure is currently in fair condition but has had a few modifications. It is sided in particle board
type sheets on the exterior, which is replacement siding. Beneath the current siding, the bones of the structure are visible and they
are substantial, old lumber, beginning with the flooring and joists. Some of the building’s windows are replacements, and one
window opening has been blinded. One large doorway on the west elevation is missing its suspended, rolling or sliding wooden
door. The lower segment of the south wall, east corner, is missing, exposing the foundation to wind, water, and cold. Near here,
an entire particle board panel has fallen off the structure’s exterior, leading to greater deterioration inside and out. Modifications
to and deterioration of the structure are mostly reversible, but they are affecting its integrity as long as they remain.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria
A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 25, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 15 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # RR-6
B1. Historic Name: House
B2. Common Name: House
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Vacant
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1940 (USGS 1940). Since that time, it has had two additions and
has replacement siding composed of many modern and older materials. There are replacement windows and doors, as well.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: fences, driveway, yard, sheds, dog houses, animal pens, barn, reservoirs
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: single-family house Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Building RR-6 is a ranch house. It is at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or longer. It has been under the
ownership, rental, or lease of Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s-1960), of Manuel Alexander (dairying) (1940s), of Henry
Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The
structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is,
therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s-1960), by Manuel Alexander (dairying) who rented
Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the Driscoll
family, Building RR-6 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The building’s style is a vernacular one, and not a good example of one. It was not the handiwork of a master
workman or craftsman, but rather the work most likely of ranchers themselves, or local carpenters. The house is not considered
eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The RR-6 single-family house retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has lost its integrity of
materials, workmanship, design, and feeling. This building has been extensively altered. First, there are several kinds of
replacement siding – plywood sheets, plywood board and batten, wood shingles, composition roofing sheets, T1-11 siding, and
horizontal boards – on the exterior. A number of modern replacement windows in metal frames with faux muntins are set in the
walls. One door is completely missing from its opening. Two additions have been made to the house. The first is a crude porch
roof added to the front of the house, over the front door. The second is a crudely-made bay on the southwest corner of the original
house. One door within this bay has broken apart, leaving the inner half in the opening. Modifications to and deterioration of the
structure is substantial, seriously compromising its integrity. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under
criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 5 of 15 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # RR-7
B1. Historic Name: unknown
B2. Common Name: Shed or workshop
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Agricultural
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular utilitarian
*B6. Construction History: The structure was constructed by 1940 (USGS 1940). Sometime later, possibly in the 1960s or
1970s, the structure was covered with replacement particle board type siding and painted.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: two reservoirs, pasture, corrals, fences, gates
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching; Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: shed or workshop Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure RR-7 is a modest-sized shed or workshop. It is at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or more. It has
been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s -1960), of Manuel Alexander (dairying)
(1940s), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family
(cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels.
The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s -1960), by Manuel Alexander
(dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more
recently by the Driscoll family, RR-7 shed is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional
or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The structure is a plain, simple, utilitarian ranch structure. It is not an especially good example of its type or an
example of a master workman. RR-7 is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The RR-7 structure retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has lost its integrity of materials,
workmanship, design, and feeling. The building is currently in poor condition. It is completely sided in replacement particle
board like material. Along its west elevation, a lower portion of the siding is gone, leaving its primitive foundations and interior
exposed to the elements. Beneath the current siding, the substantial wood bones of the structure are visible and they are old
lumber, beginning with the flooring and joists. Modifications to and deterioration of the structure may not be fatal, possibly
reversible, but they do affect its integrity. The building is not
considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C.
Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 6 of 15 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # RR-8
B1. Historic Name: unknown
B2. Common Name: bunkhouse
B3. Original Use: residential B4. Present Use: vacant
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The structure was constructed by 1940 (USGS 1940). Sometime later, possibly in the 1960s or
1970s, the structure was covered with replacement particle board type siding and painted.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: barns, pasture, corrals, fences, gates, house
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: Applicable Criteria:
Criterion A: Building RR-8 is a possible bunkhouse, in the best condition of any of the Ray’s Ranch structures. It is probably at
least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or more. It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix, Julio, or Filamena
Guerra (1920s -1960), of Manuel Alexander (dairying) (1940s), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-
raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The building is not known to be associated with events
important in history at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Felix, Julio, or Filamena Guerra (1920s-1960), by Manuel Alexander
(dairying) who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more
recently by the Driscoll family, Building RR-8 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national,
regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The building is a plain, simple, utilitarian ranch dwelling. It is not an exceptional example of its type or an example
of a master workman. RR-7 is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The RR-8 bunk house retains its integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, but has lost its integrity of
materials, workmanship, and design. The building is in relatively good condition, though it is sided in replacement particle board
type sheets on the exterior, laid over the older substantial wood structure beneath. One aluminum frame replacement slider has
been added to the building. The buildings modifications have compromised its integrity. The building is not considered eligible
for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 7 of 15 *Resource Name or #: Ray’s Ranch
*Map Name: La Honda, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
Page 8 of 15 *Resource Name or # Ray’s Ranch
*Drawn By: S. Nava *Date: 04-27-2016
DPR 523K (1/95) *Required information
NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 9 of 15 *Resource Name or # Ray’s Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*P3a. Description (continued): The remaining five buildings and structures appear to be historic in age, despite extensive
alterations and modifications to them in later years. They are RR-2, RR-5, RR-6, RR-7, and RR-8.
RR-2: Large Storage Shed or Workshop
The large wood structure designated RR-2 is a tall, one-story edifice, rectangular in plan, facing northwest, and oriented northwest-
southeast. It has a front-gabled roof of low pitch, clad in corrugated ferrous metal, with a narrow overhang and exposed eaves.
The building is of wood frame construction, with wall exteriors now clad in large sheets of plywood or pressboard. The structure
is extremely plain and utilitarian. Its northwest (front) elevation has one large off-center double door, located in the east half. Its
plywood sheets, like those on the remainder of the building are covered at their seams with wood battens. Its west elevation is
devoid of any openings. On the south elevation, a large, three-part glass window is set in the center. It is composed of a large,
fixed center pane, flanked on each side by one narrow, vertical three-pane window, one of which may have been movable in some
way. The east elevation has a person-sized access door of wood at its north end.
The structure stands on small truncated pyramidal concrete piers that rest on the ground surface. Beneath the more modern
plywood-type exterior sheathing, one can see from the interior that the plywood covers wooden walls composed of 1 by 12 inch
boards and that the floor is of stout wood boards and joists. Much of the roof has caved in and the structure as a whole appears
ready to collapse within a few years. All of the observed nails on the structure are steel wire drawn nails. RR-2 was present by at
least 1953, based on an aerial photograph from that year (NETR 1953).
RR-5: Large Barn
The RR-5 barn is located fairly close to the house. It is two stories in height, but does not have a second floor inside. It is a large,
rectangular plan structure facing west and oriented north-south. The barn is front-gabled, with a roof of moderate pitch, covered in
corrugated metal. It has a narrow overhang and exposed eaves. Exterior walls are clad in plywood-like sheets with battens that
have been nailed over original 1 by 12-inch vertical boards.
The front (west) elevation has tall, central, strap-hinged double doors and a wide, shorter door at the north end, where a sliding
door, suspended from a metal rail once existed. At its south end, the west elevation is pierced by a small access door. The barn’s
north elevation is plain except for one narrow doorway, which once had a sliding wood or metal door in front of it. The rear or
east elevation has central double, strap-hinged wood doors clad in plywood sheets and one window symmetrically spaced at each
end. The windows are possibly old replacement windows, as the northern one fills a space that was originally a larger opening.
The windows are possibly hopper type windows, with metal frames and faux muntins, meant to look like 16-pane windows. The
south elevation is plain and has just one tiny blinded window at its west end. As with RR-2, this barn is set upon truncated
pyramidal piers of concrete, space a few feet apart all around the base of the barn.
The barn has a stout wood floor and at present is used for the storage of equipment, various vehicles and other items. A cement or
concrete driveway connects the barn front door to the graveled lane within the complex. The barn structure also articulates with
pasture fences on its southwest and northeast corners. It faces the house, located some 150 feet to the west. RR-5 was present at
Ray’s Ranch by at least 1953, based on an aerial photograph from that year (NETR 1953).
RR-6: Ranch House
The small house at the ranch was occupied until recently by a caretaker (Aaron Hebert, personal communication, April 20, 2016).
It is one story in height, L-shaped in plan, east-facing, and oriented east-west. It is vernacular in style, having a low-pitched front
gabled roof with a lower pitch shed roof extending to the north, above the north half of the house. This configuration gives the
front façade a sideways saltbox shape. The roof is clad in composition shingles and has a narrow overhang and exposed eaves.
The house exterior is covered with a variety of materials, reflecting additions and modifications over time.
The east elevation is all on one vertical plane, clad in plywood-like sheets with battens. It has a nearly centered front door with ten
lights in a wood frame and two wood frame windows. The southern window is a medium-size, composed of four panes and
appears fixed at present. The northern window is larger, with six panes, two of which are smaller than the others, but it is also
fixed. It may be a homemade or modified window, perhaps salvaged from another structure. A later addition is the plywood sheet
porch cover that has been crudely placed over the front door, braced with small boards. The north elevation is clad in sheets of
plywood without benefit of battens. It has four windows, with a large aluminum slider at the east end, a small wood sash 1/1
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 10 of 15 *Resource Name or # Ray’s Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
*P3a. Description (continued):
window near the center, then a large metal frame slider at the center adjacent to a doorway with no door. The slider has faux muntins
that give the appearance of six panes of glass in each half of the slider. A similar, large metal frame window with faux muntins, but of
double hung sash type is set near the west end of the elevation.
The west elevation of the house is clad in T1-11 siding, wood shingles, and composition roofing sheets. It is fitted with a large metal
frame sash window on the north and a picture window in the south half, which appears to be an addition. This window consists of a
large fixed upper pain with two, possibly movable lower panes. The south elevation is clad in bare, horizontal 1 by 12 inch boards on
its west, projecting bay and plywood sheeting on the east half. The projecting bay has a door opening at its east end, with a porch
cover above it, then along the recessed eastern portion of the elevation there are a large and a small aluminum slider, with a 10-light
wooden door near the east end. The house is surrounded by a fenced yard area, with a large wooden animal pen, a plywood garden
shed, a number of domestic fruit and ornamental trees, as well as many domestic flowering plants.
RR-6, ranch house, was present at Ray’s Ranch by at least 1953, based on an aerial photograph from that year (NETR 1953). It is
evident from the shape and location that the original house from the mid-1900s is still within the existing structure to some degree, but
the many replacement windows, the variety of sidings, and the rather crude addition to the south and west elevations has considerably
modified the original building to the point where it is difficult to discern its original form and style.
RR-7: Shed or Workshop
RR-7 is a modest-sized structure, of one-story height, rectangular in plan, east-facing, and oriented east-west. It is located north of the
ranch house and barn complex, not far from the two ponds that now exist on the property. The structure is front-gabled, with a
moderately-pitched roof, with narrow overhang and exposed eaves. It is covered with composition shingles. The wall exteriors are
covered in plywood-like sheets with battens that were at one time painted. This is true of all the other buildings and structures at Ray’s
Ranch, as well.
The east elevation is the front of the building, which is plain, with a large wood door at the south end and a small wood frame slider
window at center. The north elevation is plain and devoid of any openings. The west elevation is fitted with a large wood door at its
north end, similar to the door on the east elevation, fastened by means of strap hinges. Along its lower section, much of the west wall
is gone, exposing some of its internal structure and exhibiting damage to the building. Its foundations here appear to be bare wood
posts standing on bare earth. RR-7, shed or workshop, was present at Ray’s Ranch by at least 1953, based on an aerial photograph
from that year (NETR 1953).
RR-8: Bunkhouse?
The RR-8 building is more intact than most of the others at Ray’s Ranch. It has many windows and only human-sized doors,
suggesting its possible use as living quarters for ranch hands or ranch owners, or as work space for inside activities. It is a one-story
building, rectangular in plan, of plain, utilitarian style. It is front-gabled, east-facing, and oriented east-west, located south of the ranch
house and big barn (RR-5). The roof is moderate in pitch, clad in corrugated metal, with narrow overhang and boxed eaves and wide
fascia board along the tops of the walls. Exterior wall siding is heavy plywood-like sheets with battens, nailed over original wide
wood boards.
The east (front) elevation has a central wooden entry door and a wood frame 2/2 sash window. The north elevation has two large
single-pane, wood frame windows that appear fixed. The west elevation has a central double door of wood, while the south elevation
is fitted with an aluminum frame replacement slider of medium size. The building may contain two interior rooms. RR-8, a possible
bunkhouse, was present at Ray’s Ranch by at least 1953, based on an aerial photograph from that year (NETR 1953).
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 11 of 15 *Resource Name or # Ray’s Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs:
RR-2, Large Shed or Workshop, north and east elevations
RR-2, Large Shed or Workshop, west and south elevations
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 12 of 15 *Resource Name or # Ray’s Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
RR-5, Large Barn, west and north elevations
RR-5, Large Barn, east and north elevations
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 13 of 15 *Resource Name or # Ray’s Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
RR-6, Ranch house, east elevation
RR-6, ranch house, west elevation
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 14 of 15 *Resource Name or # Ray’s Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
RR-7, Shed or Workshop, east elevation
RR-7, Shed or Workshop, north and west elevations
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 15 of 15 *Resource Name or # Ray’s Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
RR-8, possible Bunkhouse, east and north elevations
RR-8, possible Bunkhouse, north and west elevations
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
USGSState of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 14 *Resource Name or #: Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
P1. Other Identifier: Dubbs Ranch
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Mateo County
and (P2b and P2c or P2d).
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: La Honda, Calif. Date: T 7S; R;4W of ¼ of Sec. 10 ; MD B.M.
c. Address: City: La Honda Zip: 94020
d. UTM: Zone: 10S; 0563428 mE/ 4132654 mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: APN No. 078-290-010 and 078-270-030 Elevation: 820-880 ft amsl To access the site, travel west
on State Highway 84 from Woodside, California for 8 miles, to La Honda, California. Then turn right (northwest) onto Sears
Ranch Road and proceed for approximately 1.5 miles to the ranch buildings. These are a mile north of the locked entry gate at the
southeast entrance to the La Honda Open Space Preserve.
*P3a. Description: The Guerra-Zanoni Ranch consists of eight structures and buildings. Of these, five appear to be historic in age.
The buildings are scattered along the east and west sides of the north end of Sears Ranch Road, but are most dense to the west. Two
corrals and two structures (GZR-2 and GZR-7) appear to be modern in age. These include a dog kennel and a large storage shed.
GZR-1: Small Barn: This small wood barn, once painted pale green, is the northernmost structure at the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
complex. It is a one-story, rectangular-plan, side-gabled structure that is east-facing and is oriented north-south. Its roof is of
moderate pitch and is clad in corrugated metal, though much of it is now gone. It has a narrow overhang with exposed eaves. The
exterior walls are sided in vertical boards of 1 by 12-inch dimension, with the interior surfaces being horizontal 1 by 12s.
The east elevation of the barn has a large, central doorway, large enough for small farm (See Continuation Sheet for more text).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP3. Multiple family property; HP4. Ancillary buildings; HP30. Vegetation; HP32. Rural open
space; HP33. Ranch; HP44. Gates, fences
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo:
Ranch overview, view to south,
frame 2016_04_21_LF.032
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
1940s, 1950s
*P7. Owner and Address:
Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
*P8. Recorded by:
Lynn Furnis
Cogstone Resource Management
1518 W. Taft Ave
Orange, CA 92685
*P9. Date Recorded:
April 21, 2016
*P10. Survey Type:
Architectural survey
*P11. Report Citation: Architectural Survey and Evaluation Report for Driscoll Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo County,
California (Furnis 2016)
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 2 of 14 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # GZR-1
B1. Historic Name: Small barn
B2. Common Name: Small barn
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Agricultural
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed in 1940 or before, according to aerial photographs (NETR 1953;
USGS 1940). It has original siding and flooring and crude foundations.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: fences and corrals
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: ranch house Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure GZR-1 is a small barn. It is probably at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or more. It has been under
the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra, of Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha from the 1950s to
the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The structure is not known to be
associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on
the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by Joe Zanoni (dairying)
who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, Structure GZR-1 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local
levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The structure’s style is typical of local farm and ranch buildings from the time period but is not a good example of
the type. It is also not an example of a master workman. GZR-1 is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The GZR-1 barn retains its integrity of location, materials, design, and workmanship, but has lost its integrity of setting,
feeling, and association. The building is still composed of its original materials – mostly wide boards and heavy timbers beneath
the floor and for wall supports. The barn has been allowed to deteriorate to a great degree, with sections of roofing gone, as well
as boards from exterior walls. The interior is filled with debris and miscellaneous items. The barn has not been greatly modified,
but is badly deteriorated, which significantly affects its integrity. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under
criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 25, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 3 of 14 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # GZR-4
B1. Historic Name: House
B2. Common Name: House
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed in 1940 or before, according to aerial photographs (NETR 1953;
USGS 1940). In early years, or possibly much later, two small houses were joined together to form one. Each is a different
style, one tall and front-gabled, the other shorter and side-gabled with wide porch. The two have been much modified over
the years, with replacement siding, aluminum sliders, and many other alterations. It is difficult to know which of the houses
was the original one on the site.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: fences and corrals
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: ranch house Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Building GZR-4 is a house. It is probably at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or more. It has been under the
ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-1960), of Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha from
the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). It is currently
occupied. The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The
building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by Joe Zanoni (dairying)
who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, Building GZR-4 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local
levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The building’s style is a vernacular style, with two more traditional types of buildings joined together. It is not an
exceptional example of a vernacular type or an example of a master workman. The building is not considered eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The GZR-4 ranch house retains its integrity of location, but has lost its integrity of materials, design, workmanship,
setting, feeling, and association. The building now appears to be two smaller houses joined together at some time. Presumably,
one of them is the original house on the ranch. Alterations beyond the fusing of the houses include replacement siding of modern
rustic wood appearing T1-ll, which became available in the 1970s, and adding a few replacement aluminum sliders. The house
has been greatly modified over time, significantly affecting its integrity. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing
under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 25, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 14 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # GZR-5
B1. Historic Name: Shed
B2. Common Name: Shed
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Agricultural
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The structure was constructed in 1940 or before, according to aerial photographs (NETR 1953;
USGS 1940). It retains original wide vertical board siding (1 x 12s), and is not much modified. It stands directly on the
ground.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: fences, another shed, a cabin
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: Shed Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure GZR-5 is a shed or workshop. It is probably at least 76 years old, going back to 1940 or more. It has
been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-1960), of Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry
Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The
structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is,
therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by Joe Zanoni (dairying)
who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, Structure GZR-5 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local
levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The structure is a plain, common ranch structure for the time period, but is not an especially good example of one. It
is not an example of a master workman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The GZR-5 shed or workshop retains its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, location, and association, but has
lost its integrity of setting and feeling. It is somewhat dilapidated, with broken window and drooping roof, but otherwise retains
its original fabric and many parts. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D
does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 5 of 14 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # GZR-6
B1. Historic Name: Cabin
B2. Common Name: Cabin
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The structure was constructed in 1940 or before, according to aerial photographs (NETR 1953;
USGS 1940). It is possible the cabin was built and used somewhere else and later moved to this location, or may have been moved
to its present location from elsewhere on the property. There is no obvious evidence for it being moved. But it is a small enough
building, currently located on a steep slope, that may have been brought here by ranch owners for use as a bunkhouse or caretaker’s
house sometime in the early- to mid-twentieth century. It is constructed with wire drawn nails.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: yard, fences, sheds, house, barn
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1953 – 1971 Property Type: Cabin Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Building GZR-6 is a small cabin. It is probably at least 63 years old, going back to 1953 or more. It has been under
the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-1960), of Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry Cunha
from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is
not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not
eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1940s, by Joe Zanoni (dairying)
who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, Building GZR-6 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local
levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The small building is a cabin but is not an exceptional example of the type or an example of a master workman. The
structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The GZR-6 cabin retains its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, location, setting, and association, but has lost
its integrity of feeling. It is somewhat dilapidated, having been allowed to deteriorate. It is missing some of its roof shingles and
its siding. Its doors and windows are gone, leaving the interior to be exposed to weather and further decline. But it does still
retain its original materials and overall design. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C.
Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 6 of 14 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # GZR-7
B1. Historic Name: Storage shed
B2. Common Name: Storage shed
B3. Original Use: unknown B4. Present Use: storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular utilitarian
*B6. Construction History: The structure was constructed by 1953, possibly earlier. It was in place at its current location in
1953 (NETR 1953). It is currently sided in plywood sheets, with no windows, and just one door. Its roof and siding has been
replaced over time.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: House, fences, yard, road, shed, cabin, barn, tree windbreak
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1953-1971 Property Type: storage shed Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure GZR-7 is a storage shed. It is probably at least 63 years old, going back to 1953 or more. It has been
under the ownership, rental, or lease of Felix and Julio Guerra (1920s-1960), of Joe Zanoni in the 1940s (dairying), of Henry
Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The
structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is,
therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Felix and Julio Guerra in the 1920s to 1960, by Joe Zanoni (dairying)
who rented Ray’s Ranch from the Guerras in the 1940s, by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, Structure GZR-7 is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local
levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The structure style is a simple, plain utilitarian type. It is not an exceptional example of the type or an example of a
master workman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The GZR-7 storage shed retains its integrity of location, setting, and association, but has lost its integrity of materials,
design, workmanship, and feeling. It is in good condition, having been well-maintained over time, with replacement composition
shingle roof and plywood siding. It does not presently have any openings other than one door on its north elevation. In the past, it
may have had more openings, which have been covered over with the later siding. The building is not considered eligible for
CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 7 of 14 *Resource Name or #: Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
*Map Name: La Honda, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
Page 8 of 14 *Resource Name or #Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
*Drawn By: S. Nava *Date: 04-27-2016
DPR 523K (1/95) *Required information
NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 9 of 14 *Resource Name or # Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 21, 2016 Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*P3a. Description (continued):
machinery and/or horses to pass through. Its north elevation is composed of board and batten construction on the gable, with the same
large size boards for the remainder of the wall as on the east. It has no doors or windows. The west elevation of GZR-1 is similar to
the east elevation, with one large central doorway. It has several horizontal boards nailed across the top, above the doorway. The
barn’s south elevation has the same siding and construction, though most of the exterior boards are gone, leaving the interior board
wall and wall studs exposed to the elements.
The barn’s floor is also composed of large boards supported by massive joists. This building is thought to have stood at the ranch
since at least 1940, based on a map from that year, and based on the building’s stout construction members (USGS 1940).
GZR -4: Ranch House
The house at Guerra-Zanoni Ranch appears to have undergone alterations and additions over the years. It almost appears to be two
small houses joined together. The house is currently occupied and this ranch is used primarily for sheltering rescue dogs and cattle
grazing. It is a one-story, east-facing building, oriented north-south, and roughly rectangular in plan. The roof is cross-gabled and steep
in pitch, covered in composition shingles. It has a narrow overhang with boxed eaves and wide frieze beneath it. The house exterior is
sided in modern, but rustic-looking wood siding, similar to T1-11, first produced in the 1970s.
The front (east) elevation of GZR-4 is composed of two halves – first the projecting, more vertical and front-gabled bay, possibly the
older, original part of the house on the south side. It is tall enough to have a second story, but there are no windows or other openings
in the upper part of the exterior. Second is the adjoining north half of the elevation, which is recessed, with a wide, covered porch
across the front. Here the off-center front entryway stands, with a wood panel style door. All of the three windows on the east are
metal-framed sash types. The porch is composed of salvaged boards, with two concrete steps leading up to it.
On the north elevation of the house are two medium-sized aluminum sliders. The rear (west) elevation reflects the two different
halves, as well. Here the north half projects a few feet to the west and is set with a rear wood panel door and one sash window. The
south half is slightly recessed with one window in it. The south elevation includes one sash window and one wood frame door with ten
lights.
Based on topographic maps and aerial photographs, as well as the details of the building, at least some part of the house is thought to
have stood on this site since at least 1940 (USGS 1940; NETR 1953). One building is depicted on the 1902 USGS map, but which
building it may represent is not known (USGS 1902). The south half of the house may be the original house structure, and if so, it has
been extensively altered over time.
GZR -5: Shed or Workshop
West of the house and at the edge of the rear yard are two small wood structures. GZR-5 may have served as a shed or workshop. It is
one story in height, with a low-pitched, side-gabled roof. The shed is south-facing, oriented east-west. Corrugated metal covers the
roof, while all exterior walls are clad in 1 by 12 - inch boards, as with GZR-1 barn. The east elevation has no openings, while the north
elevation has five small windows that appear to be original and are possibly hopper types. This structure has been present since at least
1953 (NETR 1953).
GZR -6: Cabin
Adjacent to GZR-5, and west of the ranch house (GZR-4) stands this small shingle-sided cabin. It is one story in height, rectangular in
plan, and side-gabled. The cabin is vernacular in style, with a roof of moderate pitch, covered with wood shingles at one time, but
many of which are now missing. It faces east, and is oriented north-south. The structure’s east elevation has an entryway and its south
elevation has a window. At present, the cabin appears to be used for storage. It is thought to have been on the property since at least
1953 (NETR 1953). While it is poor condition, it does not appear to have been modified to any extent.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 10 of 14 *Resource Name or # Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 21, 2016 Continuation Update
*P3a. Description (continued):
GZR-7: Storage Shed
The shed known as GZR-7 may have stood on the property since at least 1953 (NETR 1953). If so, the structure has been modified
since that time. This one-story, plywood-clad structure is north-facing, with no windows or doors on the west, south, and east sides. It
is a plain, utilitarian building, front-gabled with moderately-pitched roof covered in composition shingles. It has a narrow overhang
and exposed rafters. Its walls are clad in sheets of plywood, which may or may not be covering older siding. Nothing on the outside
of the structure suggests it is from the 1950s, other than its style.
Photographs:
GZR -1, small barn, east elevation
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 11 of 14 *Resource Name or # Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
GZR-1, small barn, south elevation
GZR -4, ranch house, east and north elevations, view to southwest
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 12 of 14 *Resource Name or # Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
GZR -4, ranch house, west (rear) elevation, view to east
GZR-5, shed, east and north elevations, view to southwest
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 13 of 14 *Resource Name or # Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
GZR -6, small cabin, south and east elevations, view to north-northwest
GZR -7, storage shed, east elevation, view to west
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 14 of 14 *Resource Name or # Guerra-Zanoni Ranch
Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
GZR -7, storage shed, south elevation, view to north
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 12 *Resource Name or #: Wool Ranch P1. Other Identifier: Seale Ranch
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Mateo County
and (P2b and P2c or P2d).
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: La Honda, Calif. Date: T 7S; R 4W; unsectioned Sec. 9; MD B.M.
c. Address: City: La Honda Zip: 94020
d. UTM: Zone: 10S; 0562106mE/ 4133001mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: APN No. 078-270-030 Elevation: 660 - 840 ft amsl. To access the site, travel west on State
Highway 84 from Woodside, California for 8 miles, to La Honda, California. Then turn right (northwest) onto Sears Ranch Road
and proceed for approximately 1.5 miles to the Guerra-Zanoni Ranch buildings, where road makes sharp turn to left (west). This
becomes the Wool Ranch Road. Proceed approximately one more mile, past Harrington Creek and up the hill on a windy road
segment. A collapsed barn will be encountered first, near the road. Continue on for another 0.19 mile to remaining ranch
buildings.
*P3a. Description: The Wool Ranch currently consists of four structures and buildings. All appear to be historic in age, but one –
a moderately-sized barn or storage building (WR-1) is completely collapsed. It is located more than 1000 feet east of the ranch
house.
WR-1: Barn or Workshop: A collapsed structure, known here as WR-1, was apparently a barn or other moderately large
structure. It was of wood-frame construction, with corrugated metal covering the roof and heavy wood floor joists. It is made
with wire nails. The building is known to date to at least 1960, when it first was depicted on an aerial map (NETR 1953).
(See Continuation Sheet for more text).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family property; HP4. Ancillary building; HP30: Trees, vegetation; HP33. Ranch;
HP39. Pool
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: Wool
Ranch house, view to east, frame
2016_04_21_LF.111
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
1950s
*P7. Owner and Address:
Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
*P8. Recorded by:
Lynn Furnis
Cogstone Resource Management
1518 W. Taft Ave
Orange, CA 92685
*P9. Date Recorded:
April 21, 2016
*P10. Survey Type:
Architectural survey
*P11. Report Citation:
Architectural Survey and
Evaluation Report for Driscoll
Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo County, California (Furnis 2016)
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 2 of 12 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # WR-1
B1. Historic Name: unknown
B2. Common Name: unknown
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: abandoned
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular ranch
*B6. Construction History: The structure was constructed by 1960 but after 1956, according to aerial photographs (NETR 1956,
1960). The materials that are present and observable may be original pieces of the structure; later alterations to the structure cannot
be discerned from the collapsed ruin.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: road, ranch house, barn, corrals, pasture
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1960-1971 Property Type: small barn or shed Applicable Criteria: N/A
Criterion A: Structure WR-1 is a collapsed, moderately sized barn. It is probably at least 56 years old, as it appears on a 1960
aerial photograph, but is not on one from 1956 (NETR 1956, 1960). It has been rented or leased by Henry Cunha from the 1950s
to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), under the ownership of the Wool family from at least 1960, and more recently of the
Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional
or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, and more recently by the
Driscoll family, Structure WR-1 barn is not known to be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or
local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The structure’s style is not well known as it is a collapsed structure now. But based on its materials and on some
observable details, the small barn or storage shed appears to have been an ordinary, utilitarian, vernacular ranch structure. It is not
a good example of a type or an example of a master workman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR
under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The WR-1 barn has lost its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, feeling and association, but retains its location
and setting. It is composed of original materials from the period (mid-twentieth century), such as corrugated metal, lumber, heavy
wood timbers, but has completely collapsed in place. Its style is not known, but presumably was a utilitarian, basic barn or shed
type from the mid-twentieth century. Its integrity has been completely compromised by its collapse. The building is not
considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
1960 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 27, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 3 of 12 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # WR-2
B1. Historic Name: ranch house
B2. Common Name: Wool Ranch house
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: vacant
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1953 (NETR 1953).
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: corrals, pasture, barn, cottage, pool, garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1960-1971 Property Type: house Applicable Criteria: N/A
Criterion A: Building WR-2 is a Ranch-style, mid-1900s house with detached garage. It is at least 63 years old, as it appears on a
1953 aerial photograph, but is not on the 1940 topographic map (NETR 1953; USGS 1940). It was owned by the Wool family in
the 1960s at least, under rental or lease by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more
recently owned by the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history
at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, owned by the Wool family
in the 1960s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the WR-2 house is not known to be associated with persons important
historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The house is a Ranch-style residence, common in the mid- to late-1900s. It is an ordinary example of a Ranch-style
house, and not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR
under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The WR-2 ranch house retains its integrity of location, and setting, but has lost its integrity of materials, design,
workmanship, feeling and association. It is now sided in replacement aluminum, has several additions, including an outhouse that
abuts the house to house the water heater, an added section to join the garage to the house, an added bay to one corner of the rear
of the house, and an added crude heavy lumber front porch over the front entryway. A swimming pool was added in the rear yard
by 1991. The integrity of the house has been seriously compromised by the many alterations and additions. The building is not
considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C.
Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1960 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 25, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 12 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # WR-3
B1. Historic Name: unknown
B2. Common Name: unknown
B3. Original Use: Residence B4. Present Use: vacant
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed sometime in the 1970s or perhaps early 1980s. It does not appear to
have been altered since that time.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: ranch house, garage, road, pool, barn, corrals
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1970-1971 Property Type: cottage Applicable Criteria: N/A
Criterion A: Building WR-3 is a vernacular-style, mid-1900s cottage. It is thought to be at least 45 years old based on its style
and materials and its absence on aerial photographs from 1953, 1956, and 1960 (NETR 1953, 1956, 1960). It was owned by the
Wool family in the 1960s, rented or leased by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more
recently owned by the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history
at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, by the Wool family in the
1960s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the WR-3 cottage is not known to be associated with persons important
historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The house is a vernacular-style cottage, possibly constructed by the dairymen themselves or by local carpenters. It
is an ordinary example of a vernacular, mid-1900s small dwelling, and not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The
structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The WR-3 cottage retains its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, feeling, association location, and setting. The
cottage retains all of its integrity and is in good condition in that regard. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing
under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1960 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 27, 2016
This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 5 of 12 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # WR-4
B1. Historic Name: unknown
B2. Common Name: Upper Wool Barn
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Abandoned
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular, utilitarian ranch
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1991, but after 1960, so it may have been in place in the 1960s or
1970s. It has been abandoned for some time and, though it still stands, much of its siding and roofing materials have fallen from or
been removed from the structure.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: pasture, corrals, road, ranch house, garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1965?-1971 Property Type: Barn Applicable Criteria: N/A
Criterion A: Structure WR-4 is a large, partially collapsed storage barn. It is thought to be at least 45 years old as it is not shown
on aerial photographs from 1956 or 1960, but is on one from 1991 and was apparently constructed sometime between those years
(NETR 1956, 1960, 1991). It was owne d by the Wool family in the 1960s, rented or leased by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the
1980s (dairying and cattle-raising), and more recently owned by the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to
be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing
on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Henry Cunha from the 1950s to the 1980s, owned by the Wool family
in the 1960s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the WR-4 barn is not known to be associated with persons important
historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The barn is a plain, utilitarian style. It is an ordinary example of a vernacular, mid-1900s barn and not an
extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The WR-4 barn retains its integrity of materials, location, and setting, but has lost its integrity of design, workmanship,
feeling, and association. The barn has been left in disrepair and is therefore in bad condition now, from neglect. Its integrity has
been seriously compromised as a result. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C.
Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1960 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com
on April 19, 2016
1991 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com
on April 19, 2016
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 27, 2016
This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 6 of 12 *Resource Name or #: Wool Ranch
*Map Name: La Honda, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
Page 7 of 12 *Resource Name or # Wool Ranch
*Drawn By: S. Nava *Date: 04-27-2016
DPR 523K (1/95) *Required information
NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 8 of 12 *Resource Name or # Wool Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20, 2016 Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*P3a. Description (continued):
WR-2: Ranch House
The Wool Ranch house was constructed on this site by 1953, having the same configuration as it does today, except for a couple of
details. It is a surprisingly modern-looking house, especially considering its remote location. It is a single-story, Ranch-style
house, with complex plan. The house is northwest facing, looking towards the winding, adjacent Wool Ranch Road and is oriented
northeast-southwest, with a rambling appearance. The roof is complex, with a hipped roof above the projecting, main entry bay, as
well as separate hipped components over two other bays to the south and east, and a gable segment connecting two of the hipped
components. The roofs are all of low pitch, covered in shake shingles, and form narrow overhangs around the house. Most of the
siding on the house is now replacement aluminum siding, in a pattern mimicking wood drop siding. In one location on the south
side of the house, actual wood siding of the same width as the metal pattern is present. The garage retains its original wood drop
siding on its rear elevation.
On the northwest (front) elevation, the main bay projects approximately 5 feet to the northwest. It has a central wooden door with
nine lights, an aluminum slider at its north end, with wood trim, and a large horizontal, six-pane window south of the front door
that may or may not be fixed. A rough, homemade porch was added to the front of this bay, comprised of large sized boards and
posts, with wooden eaves covered with corrugated metal. At the southwest corner of this front bay stands a massive brick fireplace
and chimney. The middle section of the front elevation is recessed and is fitted with two wood-trimmed windows, one being
similar to the large one on the front bay, with six horizontal panes, and the other being an aluminum slider. Further south, a small
structure has been added to the elevation to house the water heater. This structure looks suspiciously like an outhouse that has
been reused and relocated. It has a shed roof also covered in shake shingles. It abuts a third bay on the front, which also projects
to the northwest. The projecting segment may be an addition that articulates with an originally detached garage.
The northeast elevation of the house has two large aluminum sliders and one casement window, as well as a low, rectangular
structure that has been added to the side of the house and has a long stove pipe projecting up above the roof edge.
The rear (southeast) elevation forms a U shape, with projecting bays at north and south ends and a wooden deck surrounding more
than half of the exterior. The northern two-thirds of this elevation are filled with large picture windows, aluminum sliders, sliding
glass doors and other fixed windows, to take advantage of the pool area and of the view. While the house appeared on an aerial
map from 1953, the back yard swimming pool was not in place until sometime between 1960 and 1991, probably not until at least
the 1980s by the looks of its tiles and general appearance. The projecting southern bay may be a later addition as it looks
somewhat incongruous and there is a break in the siding on its southwest elevation. In this area, the wood roof trim is different and
some of the siding is actual wood rather than aluminum.
The southwest elevation of the house is an alignment of additions, starting with the bay just described above, followed by one
original section of the house, then northwest of that the addition that joined the house to the garage, then the southeast and
southwest elevations of the garage (which is sided in actual wood drop siding), ending at a shed-like addition added to the
northwest side of the garage, possibly for additional automobile storage.
WR-3: Cottage
WR-3 is a cottage or guest house in the rear yard of the ranch house, near the pool. It is plain, of one story, with side-gabled roof
of moderate pitch, covered in wood shake shingles. It is rectangular in plan, facing northwest, towards the pool and is oriented
north-south. The cottage is sided in a combination of aluminum siding of the same pattern as the main house, with a panel of T1-
11 siding across much of the front elevation. Its front entrance is a sliding glass door, accessed by means of a small, low wooden
deck with railing. Aluminum sliders are set in the northwest and southwest elevations. The cabin likely dates from the period
when the main house was re-sided, perhaps in the 1970s or 1980s, as was not present on the earlier maps and aerial photographs
(NETR 1953, 1960).
WR-4: Upper Barn
The large, partially collapsed barn located to the northwest of the ranch house is known as the Upper Wool Barn, here referred to
as WR-4 (Figure 52). It is a single story barn, rectangular in plan with multiple interior rooms, northeast-facing, and oriented
southeast-northwest. It is very close to the dirt road that provides access to the Wool Ranch. It is side-gabled, with a roof of
moderate pitch, covered in corrugated metal. Exterior walls are composed of a very stout T1-11 type wood siding, with interior
walls composed of plywood sheets. The front (northeast) elevation is missing much of its surface, but what is there is
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 9 of 12 *Resource Name or # Wool Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20, 2016 Continuation Update
*P3a. Description (continued):
composed of the heavy, large sheets of the T1-11. At the southeast end, a projecting enclosure or shelter extends approximately 6
feet to the northeast and is open across its northeast elevation.
Photographs:
WR-1, collapsed barn/shop, view to southeast
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 10 of 12 *Resource Name or # Wool Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
WR-2, ranch house, northwest elevation
WR-2, ranch house and pool, rear elevation
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 11 of 12 *Resource Name or # Wool Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
WR-2, ranch house additions, on southwest elevation
WR-3, cottage, northwest and southwest elevations
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 12 of 12 *Resource Name or # Wool Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
WR-4, large barn, northeast elevation
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 10 *Resource Name or #: Upper Folger Ranch
P1. Other Identifier: Driscoll Ranch
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Mateo County
and (P2b and P2c or P2d).
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Date: T 7 S; R 4 W; unsectioned Sec. 16 ; MD B.M.
c. Address: City: La Honda Zip: 94020
d. UTM: Zone: 10S; 0561010mE/ 4131291mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: APN No. 082-170-040 Elevation: 640-660 ft amsl To access the site, travel west on State Highway
84 from Woodside, California for 8 miles, to La Honda, California. Then continue south, then west on State Highway 84 for
approximately 2.5 miles and turn right (north) onto a dirt road with metal gate across it, oriented northeast. The gate is locked.
The site is located approximately 1400 ft ((0.26 mile) northeast of the gate, along the main graveled road.
*P3a. Description: The Folger Ranch includes two different building and structure clusters, known as the Upper Folger Ranch
and the Lower Folger Ranch. Currently, there are three historic structures and buildings at the Upper Folger Ranch, as well as a
more recent corral, and a standing cattle oiler that post-dates 1970.
UFR-1: Animal Shelter
UFR-1 is a metal and wood animal shelter located at the north end of this small complex. It faces north, and is oriented east-west.
The structure is one story in height, rectangular in plan, with a low-pitched shed roof. It is enclosed on three sides by sheet metal
vertical siding, and open on the north side to allow cows to easily shelter here. The roof covering is unknown, but it projects to
the north for several feet, providing shelter above the wide open elevation. The walls are composed of sheet metal, with the upper
part of the east and west walls covered with heavy T1-11 type siding. (See Continuation Sheet for more text).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single family house; HP4. Ancillary building; HP.33. Ranch; HP32. Rural open space
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo:
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
Circa 1940
*P7. Owner and Address:
Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
*P8. Recorded by:
Lynn Furnis
Cogstone Resource Management
1518 W. Taft Ave
Orange, CA 92685
*P9. Date Recorded:
April 22, 2016
*P10. Survey Type:
Architectural survey
*P11. Report Citation:
Architectural Survey and
Evaluation Report for Driscoll
Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo County, California (Furnis 2016)
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 2 of 10 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # UFR-1
B1. Historic Name: unknown
B2. Common Name: animal shelter
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Agricultural
*B5. Architectural Style: Utilitarian
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1940 (USGS 1940). It has been altered over time, apparently in or
after the 1970s, as it has had strips of T1-11 siding attached to the tops of its east and west elevations.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: corrals, fences, house or bunk house, road, pasture
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: Applicable Criteria:
Criterion A: Structure UFR-1 is a metal animal shelter. It is thought to be at least 76 years old as it is shown on the 1953 aerial
photograph and on the 1940 USGS map (NETR 1953; USGS 1940). It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Carter
Lane in the 1950s and 1960s, of Charlie Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, of Peter Folger and Charlie
Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated
with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR
under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the 1960s and by Peter
Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the UFR-1 animal shelter is not known to
be associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for
listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The metal shelter is a plain, utilitarian style. It is an ordinary example of a mid-1900s shelter and not an
extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The structure is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The UFR-1 structure retains its integrity of materials, design, workmanship, feeling, location, and setting, but has lost
its integrity of association. The shelter remains in good condition, with one alteration being the addition of strips of T1-11 to the
top of two elevations. Its integrity has not been seriously compromised. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing
under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 3 of 10 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # UFR-2
B1. Historic Name: unknown
B2. Common Name: Bunk House or cabin
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: vacant
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1940, as it is shown on a USGS map for that year and on a 1953
aerial photograph (NETR 1953; USGS 1940). It has been altered in several ways over time. First, the bunkhouse or cabin has had
a crude, wooden porch added to its front entrance, as well as a small room or closet added to its northwest corner. In addition, a
sliding glass door has been added to its south elevation, while an older door on its east elevation has been blinded.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Animal shelter, corrals, pasture, road, barn
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: residence Applicable Criteria: N/A
Criterion A: Building UFR-2 is a small dwelling, possibly a bunk house or hunting cabin. It is thought to be at least 76 years old
as it is shown on the 1953 aerial photograph and on the 1940 USGS map (NETR 1953; USGS 1940). It was under the ownership,
rental, or lease of Carter Lane in the 1950s and 1960s, leased by Charlie Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s,
owned by Peter Folger and worked by Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently owned and operated by the Driscoll
family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local
levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the 1960s and by Peter
Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the UFR-2 dwelling is not known to be
associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for
listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The small wood building is a plain, utilitarian style. It is an ordinary example of a mid-1900s rural cabin and not an
extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the building is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The UFR-2 building retains its integrity of location, setting, and association but has lost its integrity of materials,
design, workmanship, and feeling. The bunkhouse or cabin has had a crude, wooden porch added to its front entrance, as well as a
small room or closet added to its northwest corner. In addition, a modern sliding glass door has been added to its south elevation,
while an older door on its east elevation has been blinded. Due to these alterations and additions, the cabin’s integrity has been
compromised. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 10 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # UFR-3
B1. Historic Name: Barn
B2. Common Name: Barn
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: abandoned
*B5. Architectural Style: Prairie Style barn
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1940 (USGS 1940). Since it has collapsed and has deteriorated for
some years, it is difficult to discern what alterations may have occurred over time. It currently has a corrugated metal roof which
may or may not have been its original roof material.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: cattle oiler, pasture, corrals, bunk house, animal shelter, road
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1940-1971 Property Type: Barn Applicable Criteria: N/A
Criterion A: Structure UFR-3 is a large barn that has partially collapsed in place. It is thought to be at least 76 years old as it is
shown on the 1953 aerial photograph and on the 1940 USGS map (NETR 1953; USGS 1940). It was owned by Carter Lane in the
1950s and 1960s, leased by Charlie Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, owned by Peter Folger and worked by
Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently owned and operated by the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The structure is
not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not
eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the 1960s and by Peter Folger and
Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the UFR-3 barn is not known to be associated with
persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the CRHR
under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The barn’s style is very similar to other large hay and cow-feeding barns that still remain in the area, and within the
Driscoll Ranch property. It is a plain, utilitarian style, a sort of Prairie style barn. It is an ordinary example of a mid-1900s large
barn of the Coast Range area and is not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not considered eligible
for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The UFR-3 structure retains its integrity of location and setting, but has lost its integrity of materials, design,
workmanship, feeling, and association. The barn retains most of its original materials but due to its partial collapse is in extreme
disrepair and in bad condition. Due to its neglect and collapse, the barn’s integrity has been seriously compromised. The building
is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1940 Halfmoon Bay, Calif. 15 minute topographic quadrangle,
United States Geological Survey, Washington D. C.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 5 of 10 *Resource Name or #: Upper Folger Ranch
*Map Name: La Honda, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
Page 6 of 10 *Resource Name or # Upper Folger Ranch
*Drawn By: S. Nava *Date: 04-27-2016
DPR 523K (1/95) *Required information
NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 7 of 10 *Resource Name or # Upper Folger Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*P3a. Description (continued):
As mentioned above, the front (north) elevation is completely open, with a center support post to hold up the roof, a heavy horizontal
roof beam above the post and the thick roof overhang projecting north for a few feet. The west and east elevations are similar, with
vertically ribbed metal siding, topped by T1-11 type siding and with no doors or windows. The rear (south) elevation is also a solid
sheet metal wall, devoid of openings, and without T1-11 siding at the top. Instead this elevation is topped by two horizontal boards
that are part of the roof structure. The age of UFR-1 is difficult to discern from its materials and construction, though T1-11 became
available in the early 1970s. This siding was probably a later addition, as the structure itself is shown on the 1953 aerial photograph,
and possibly on the 1940 topographic map (NETR 1953; USGS 1940). All of the existing buildings at Upper Folger Ranch date to at
least 1953, and possibly to at least 1940 for the same reasons.
UFR-2: Bunkhouse or Hunting Cabin
UFR-2 was a dwelling of some sort, possibly a small ranch house, a bunkhouse for ranch hands, or a hunting cabin for some of the
property owners, as is rumored (Aaron Hebert, personal communication, April 20, 2016). It is a very simple, plain building, one story
in height, rectangular in plan, that is north-facing, and oriented east-west. The building is a simple, vernacular side-gabled style, with a
moderately-pitched roof covered in corrugated metal, with narrow overhang and open eaves. A short, wide stovepipe projects from
roof in the southeast corner of the building. The building is clad in wood drop siding.
The front (north) elevation has two entry doors at its west end, both of wood panel style. One of the doors leads into a small enclosed
cell that is attached to the elevation as a later addition. The north elevation also has a large window near the center that is presently
boarded up. A massive, crude, homemade porch cover stands in front of and above the two entry doors. It is composed of wood
support posts and heavy 1 by 12-inch vertical boards in its gable. It is front-gabled and covered with corrugated metal.
The east elevation has a large louvered vent in its gable and the clear outline of a former doorway that has been filled with wo od
siding. The south elevation is plain, with two openings. At the center is a sliding glass door that definitely is a later addition or
replacement. The second is a small window near the west end, devoid of glass and boarded up. It had a wood frame. The building
foundation is visible on this elevation and consists of short wood posts standing on bare ground. The building has been at this location
since at least 1953 and possibly earlier, during the 1940s (NETR 1953; USGS 1940).
The west elevation also has a louvered gable vent and an access door. Inside, the room is clad in wood clapboarding, well finished.
UFR-3: Large, collapsed barn
This large, collapsed hay barn lies approximately 500 feet south of the cabin and animal shelter, described above. It is a wood frame
structure, rectangular in plan, with taller center bay flanked by lower, sloped wings. The roof was front-gabled and covered in
corrugated metal. Presumably, the structure was north-facing, but possibly its main entrance was to the east, adjacent to the road into
the ranch. Its walls were clad in vertical 1 by 12-inch boards. This building has stood at the ranch probably since 1940 (NETR 1953;
USGS 1940).
In the clearing just south of this barn, a feature labeled UPR-4, has been identified as a cattle oiler. This is used to apply oil to cows’
skin in order to repel flies and to comb their old hair off with attached metal curry combs. The device retains a stenciled mark
“SITTNER MFG. CO. INC./ SHERIDAN, WYOMING.” The mark indicates that the oiler was a product of Ed Sittner. Sittner
invented the cattle oiler in Nebraska and in 1971 moved to Sheridan, Wyoming. This oiler, then, post-dates 1970 (Casper Star Tribune
2003).
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 8 of 10 *Resource Name or # Upper Folger Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs:
UFR-1 metal animal shelter, north and west elevations
UFR-2, bunk house or cabin, north and east elevations
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 9 of 10 *Resource Name or # Upper Folger Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
UFR-2, bunk house or cabin, front addition detail
UFR-3, collapsed barn, north elevation
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 10 of 10 *Resource Name or # Upper Folger Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 20-21, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
UFR-4, Sittner cattle oiler, view to east
UFR-4, Sittner cattle oiler, painted maker’s mark
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 11 *Resource Name or #: Lower Folger Ranch
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Mateo County
and (P2b and P2c or P2d).
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: La Honda, Calif. Date: T 7S;R 4 W; unsectioned Sec. 16; MD B.M.
c. Address: City: La Honda Zip: 94020
d. UTM: Zone: 10 S 0561164mE/ 4130196mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: APN No. 082-170-040 Elevation: 360-410 ft amsl. To access the site, travel west on State Highway
84 from Woodside, California for 8 miles, to La Honda, California. Then continue south, then west on State Highway 84 for
approximately 2.5 miles and turn right (north) onto a dirt road with metal gate across it, oriented northeast. The gate is locked.
The site is located approximately 1400 ft ((0.26 mile) northeast of the gate, along the main graveled road.
*P3a. Description: Known at present as the Lower Folger Ranch, this small complex of buildings is situated on east and west sides
ofa graveled, unnamed road. The complex consists of a small wooden barn, a ranch-style house with attached garage, and a
separate garage or workshop. Three large fenced pastures, rectangular in shape, are located just east of the barn. A modern water
tank stands nearby, as well, approximately 150 ft south-southeast of the workshop building. Based on their architecture and on
historic aerial photographs, the barn appears to be older than the other buildings and was in place by 1960, with the other buildings
in place by 1968. Presumably, the house was occupied by residents involved in cattle ranching at the locale. (See attached
Continuation Sheet for additional description).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP.2: Single family property; HP33. Ranch; HP.32: Rural open space; HP4. Ancillary building;
HP46. Fences.
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: West
and south elevations of Lower
Folger Ranch barn, view to E-NE,
frame 2016_04_22_LF.058
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
Circa 1960 to 1968 established
*P7. Owner and Address:
Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
*P8. Recorded by:
Lynn Furnis
Cogstone Resource Management
1518 W. Taft Ave
Orange, CA 92685
*P9. Date Recorded:
April 22, 2016
*P10. Survey Type:
Architectural survey
*P11. Report Citation:
Architectural Survey and
Evaluation Report for Driscoll Ranch near La Honda, San Mateo County, California (Furnis 2016)
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 2 of 11 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # LFR-1
B1. Historic Name: House
B2. Common Name: House
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential
*B5. Architectural Style: Ranch-style
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed between 1961 and 1968 per historic aerial photographs from those
years. (NETR 1961, 1968). According to Aaron Hebert of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, the house was
extensively refurbished in the past few years, including exterior siding, roofing, vinyl slider windows throughout the exterior, a
vinyl sliding glass door at the rear, and more on the interior.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: a barn, a workshop/garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1960s-1971 Property Type: ranch house Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Building LFR-1 is a 1960s Ranch-style house. It is thought to be at least 50 to 56 years old as it is shown on the
1968 aerial photograph (NETR 1968). It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Carter Lane in the 1960s, of Charlie
Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, of Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently of
the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national,
regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the 1960s and by Peter
Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the LFR-1 dwelling is not known to be
associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for
listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The house is a typical example of the mid-1900s Ranch-style house, but is not an exceptional example of one. It is
not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The LFR-1 house retains its integrity of location and setting, but has lost its integrity of materials, design,
workmanship, feeling, and association. According to Aaron Hebert, the house was very recently completed remodeled, re-sided,
and generally updated. It does not now retain its original materials. For this reason, its integrity has been compromised. The
building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
1968 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at
www.historicaerials.com on April 19, 2016
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 25, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 3 of 11 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # Lower Folger Ranch
B1. Historic Name: animal barn
B2. Common Name: animal barn
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Agricultural
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1960 but after 1953, according to aerial photographs (NETR 1953,
1960). It has a shed addition composed of plywood which may have been added many years ago and is now historic in age itself.
It has large plywood doors at the west end of the addition. The north elevation has multiple kinds of replacement siding.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: corrals, fences, gates, road, house, storage shed
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1955-1971 Property Type: animal barn Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure LFR-2 is a small wooden barn for animals. It is thought to be at least 61 years old as it is shown on the
1960 aerial photograph and may pre-date that by a few years (NETR 1960). It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of
Carter Lane in the 1950s and 1960s, of Charlie Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, of Peter Folger and Charlie
Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently of the Driscoll family (cattle raising). The structure is not known to be associated
with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR
under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the 1960s and by Peter
Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the LFR-2 barn is not known to be
associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for
listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The barn is a simple, utilitarian wooden structure, but is not an exceptional example of one. It is not an
extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The LFR-2 structure retains its integrity of location and setting, but has lost its integrity of materials, design,
workmanship, feeling, and association. The barn has been subject to a few alterations and additions over time. A shed roof, low
addition has been added to the entire south elevation of the original barn, which may have been done many years ago.
Replacement siding consisting of plywood has been placed along the north elevation. For these reasons, the barn’s integrity has
been compromised. The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not
apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com
on April 19, 2016
1960 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com
on April 19, 2016
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 26, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 4 of 11 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # LFR-3
B1. Historic Name: workshop/ shed
B2. Common Name: workshop/ shed
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: Storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed between 1960 and 1968, according to aerial photographs (NETR 1960,
1968). It does not appear to have been much modified since 1968, though most of its current siding is probably replacement
cladding.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: gates, fences, corrals, road
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1968-1971 Property Type: workshop/shed Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure LFR-3 is a workshop or shed. It is thought to be at least 50 to 56 years old as it is shown on the 1968
aerial photograph (NETR 1968). It has been under the ownership, rental, or lease of Carter Lane in the 1960s, of Charlie
Bettencourt (dairying and cattle-raising) in the 1960s, of Peter Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently of
the Driscoll family (cattle-raising). The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national,
regional or local levels. The building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by Carter Lane and Charlie Bettencourt from the 1960s and by Peter
Folger and Charlie Bettencourt in the 1970s, and more recently by the Driscoll family, the LFR-3 structure is not known to be
associated with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for
listing on the CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The workshop/shed is a simple, vernacular, utilitarian wooden structure, but is not an exceptional example of one. It
is not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not considered eligible for listing on the CRHR under
Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The LFR-3 structure retains its integrity of feeling, association, location, and setting, but has lost its integrity of
materials, workmanship, and design, as it appears to have replacement siding of plywood over much of its exterior. One large
door on the east elevation and a central portion of its west (rear) elevation retains an older, wide, vertical board siding, the west
section being board and batten. It has not been subject to alterations or additions over time. The shed retains its integrity.
The building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1960 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com
on April 19, 2016
1968 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com
on April 19, 2016
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 25, 2016
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 5 of 11 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # LFR-4
B1. Historic Name: Barn
B2. Common Name: Barn
B3. Original Use: Agricultural B4. Present Use: abandoned, collapsed
*B5. Architectural Style: unknown
*B6. Construction History: The building was constructed by 1953, as it is shown on a 1953 aerial photograph (NETR 1953). It
is now a collapsed, dilapidated structure that has been abandoned. Additional construction history cannot be determined.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: road
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture, Cattle Ranching, Dairying Area: San Mateo County
Period of Significance: 1953-1971 Property Type: barn Applicable Criteria: n/a
Criterion A: Structure LFR-4 is a large, collapsed barn. It is thought to be at least 63 years old as it is shown on the 1953 aerial
photograph (NETR 1953). It has been under the ownership of the Driscoll family (cattle-raising) from the 1970s or 1990s to the
present. The structure is not known to be associated with events important in history at national, regional or local levels. The
building is, therefore, not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion A.
Criterion B: Though associated with and probably used by the Driscoll family, the LFR-4 structure is not known to be associated
with persons important historically at national, regional or local levels. It is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing on the
CRHR under Criterion B.
Criterion C: The barn is completely collapsed, but appears to be a simple, typical utilitarian wooden barn, but is not known to be
an exceptional example of one. It is not an extraordinary example of a master craftsman. The building is not considered eligible
for listing on the CRHR under Criterion C.
Criterion D: Since the structure is not an archaeological resource, this criterion does not apply to the architectural resource.
Integrity: The LFR-4 structure retains its integrity of materials and location, but has lost its integrity of design, workmanship,
feeling, and association. It has completely collapsed in place and therefore its integrity has been severely compromised. The
building is not considered eligible for CRHR listing under criteria A, B, or C. Criterion D does not apply.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC)
1953 Aerial photograph of Project Area, Nationwide Environmental
Title Research, LLC, accessed online at www.historicaerials.com
on April 19, 2016
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Lynn Furnis
*Date of Evaluation: April 25, 2016
-This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 6 of 11 *Resource Name or #: Lower Folger Ranch
*Map Name: La Honda, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map:
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
Page 7 of 11 *Resource Name or #Lower Folger Ranch
*Drawn By: S. Nava *Date: 04-27-2016
DPR 523K (1/95) *Required information
NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 8 of 11 *Resource Name or # Lower Folger Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 22, 2016 Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*P3a. Description (continued):
LFR-1: Ranch house
The ranch house for the Lower Folger Ranch is a modest, Ranch-style house with attached garage, one story in height, rectangular in
plan, east-facing toward the closest road, and oriented north-south. It is side-gabled, with a low-pitched roof covered in composition
shingles. It has a moderate overhang. The house is clad in painted board and batten siding and all windows have wood trim.
According to Aaron Hebert (personal communication, April 20, 2016), the MROSD refurbished the house extensively in recent years,
including replacing siding and many other elements both inside and out.
The east (front) elevation has a central front entry door located within the slightly recessed half of the elevation. A narrow porch
occupies the space in front of the recess and is fitted with support posts and a decorative railing. Four sliders (some aluminum, some
vinyl) are set in the front elevation. A concrete step provides access to the front door from within the porch. The north elevation is
plain except for a small central aluminum slider. The rear (west) elevation has three large sliders, a vinyl sliding glass door, and a
brick fireplace and chimney, as well as back steps to the door. A single wood access door leads into the attached garage on its west
elevation, as well. The roof of the garage is set a few feet lower than that of the house, due to the slope of the land. The south
elevation of the garage has a single large slider at center. The large garage door for automobile entrance is located on the east
elevation of the garage.
LFR-2: Small barn
Across the graveled road from the ranch house, just to the east, is a small wooden barn, perhaps a horse barn. It is one and a half
stories tall, front-gabled, with a low-pitch roof, and facing west. It is oriented east-west and stands close to the access road to the
ranch. Rectangular in plan, the barn is plain and utilitarian in style, with an addition attached to its south side and having a low shed
roof. The roof is covered in composition shingles, has a narrow overhang, and exposed eaves. The taller and original structural
component is sided in several materials.
On its west elevation, the original barn structure is sided in wide-sized board and batten, while the south addition is composed of
plywood sheets. An opening is located high on the wall near the barn’s north end, possibly used for loading hay into the barn. Wide
double doors of plywood are attached to the front of the addition by large strap hinges, providing access to this bay. The south
elevation of the addition is plain, with one central window, and siding of large plywood sheets. The north elevation has one small
opening in its east half. It is clad in the same board and batten as the front along its west half, then covered with plywood along the
east half. The barn articulates with fencing on two sides, which encloses a pasture in which three large rectangular, modern corrals
stand. These are east of the barn.
LFR-3: Workshop/Shed
To the south of the house, a roughly rectangular structure stands, fitted with large doors on its east elevation, suggesting storage for
automobiles or farm equipment. It is a single story, utilitarian building that faces east and is oriented north-south. It has a side-gabled,
low-pitch roof covered in composition shingles. It has a moderate overhang and exposed eaves. The structure is sided in plywood,
some of it in sheets, some of it applied as board and batten.
The east (front) elevation has a south bay that projects a few feet to the east and has a large sliding door suspended from railing. North
of this bay, within the recessed north half of the elevation are two more large plywood pivot-type doors, also automobile or machinery
size.
Its west elevation has an access door within a projecting bay at the north end. The bay has its own roof element that overlaps the roof
on the main part of the building. The south elevation has a central slider. As previously mentioned, this structure has been at this
ranch since the 1960s.
LFR-4: Collapsed barn down the road
A collapsed, large barn remains south of the Lower Folger Ranch complex, just off the main access road, and at the location of a
former intersection of dirt roads. The barn was of wood construction, with a corrugated metal roof. It may have stood at this location
since at least 1953, when it stood just across another dirt road from two other buildings no longer present. Based on its location and
proximity to other buildings, it is possible that the barn stood on Tichnor property, rather than on Folger land. Not much more can be
said about it.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 9 of 11 *Resource Name or # Lower Folger Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 22, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs:
LFR-1, ranch house, east elevation
LFR-1, ranch house, north and west elevations
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 10 of 11 *Resource Name or # Lower Folger Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 22, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
LFR-2, animal barn, west and south elevations
LFR-2, animal barn, west and north elevations
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 11 of 11 *Resource Name or # Lower Folger Ranch
*Recorded by: L. Furnis *Date: April 22, 2016 Continuation Update
Photographs (continued):
LFR-3, workshop/shed, east elevation
LFR-4, collapsed hay barn
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Attachment 4
1150 Sears Ranch Road
Factors to Consider in Structures Disposition
Board Policy 4.09
Board-Adopted District
Policies
The demolition of this residence is consistent with other structures related Board Policy
including the recently revised Improvement District Lands (4.02).
Compatibility with Open
Space Character of the Site
In general, it is not optimal for a residence to be adjacent to a public trail or staging area as it
detracts from the open space experience for the public, or the privacy of the resident is
compromised. This residence is located adjacent to the Phase I Trail Improvements in the lower
La Honda Creek OSP.
Historic and Educational
Value
Cogstone conducted a historical assessment in June of 2016 for all structures in the lower La
Honda Creek OSP (see Attachment 3). This residence was assessed in that report. This residence
was built around 1940 and was part of the historic Guerra-Zanoni Ranch in La Honda. The
ranch was used primarily for either dairy farming or cattle ranching. Even though it is part of
local history, it is not historically significant and ineligible for the historic register, as it had
undergone too many alterations and additions over the years. The District plans to install
interpretive signage in the area to emphasize the agricultural history of the lower La Honda
Creek OSP. The District will take pictures to document the structure prior to demolition.
Partnership
Opportunities/Cooperation
As this residence is not of historical significance and/or its structural integrity is poor,
preservation of this structure is not desired. Consequently, partnership and cost sharing are not
factors to consider.
Potential Financial Cost,
Including Liability and
Management
Given the degraded condition of the foundation, flooring, walls, and code issues, a total repair of
this residence is not be possible. A replacement structure would cost between $500,000 and
$600,000.
Proposed and Potential Uses The demolition of this residence will return the area to open space. In the upcoming Board
report on Agricultural Workforce Housing, this site is proposed as a secondary option for the
replacement of the AGCO Hay LLC ranch worker housing depending on water availability
(well). Additionally, should a residence be rebuilt, it should be setback off the public trail to
provide an adequate privacy buffer for the resident. This privacy buffer is important for the
public as well to not visually affect their trail experience.
Agricultural Value Even though this house has an agricultural history in dairy farming and cattle ranching, the
degraded condition of the structure does not provide agricultural workforce housing that meets
state habitability standards.
Regional Important or Value Coastal agricultural families familiar with the ranching history of the area may be familiar with
the operations of the previous Guerra-Zanoni Ranch and this house. Additionally, this residence
provided a valuable local service as a dog-boarding kennel for southern San Mateo coast
residents. As the former resident and kennel operator has relocated to a completely different
area, the service is no longer available to the community.
Strategic Fit This residence and location does not provide strategic value to the District unless the site is
chosen as a potential site for Agricultural Workforce Housing.
Tradeoffs and Impacts on
District Resources
No tradeoffs or impacts to District resources results from demolition.
Visitor Experience This residence detracts from the visitor open space experience.
Condition of the Structure From the Structural Assessment (see Attachment 2), it is clear that the structural integrity of this
building is extremely poor. The foundation and flooring are severely degraded. The wall
construction is very old and with the exception of the roof, exterior siding and bathroom, nothing
in the house appears to be up to code.
Attachment 5 – Kennel House Photos
Exterior
Improved Spaces
Original Living Room
Floor Sloping and Damage
R-17-60
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 9
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to GradeTech Inc., for construction of the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area
and Driveway Improvements, and site cleanup work at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve for
a Base Amount Not-to-Exceed $678,888 and a Separate 15% Contingency of $101,833.
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with GradeTech Inc., of San Ramon,
California for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $678,888.
2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $101,833 to be reserved for
unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $780,721.
SUMMARY
The Sears Ranch Road Parking Area and Driveway Improvements Project includes the following
activities to prepare lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve for public access: (1)
construction of a new, paved parking area; (2) improvements to the Sears Ranch Road driveway
entrance; (3) remediation and demolition of one residential structure with no foundation; (4)
remediation and demolition of one shed; and (5) removal of miscellaneous debris. A Request for
Bids was issued on April 18, 2017. The District received two (2) bid proposals on May 8, 2017.
GradeTech Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Therefore, the General Manager
recommends awarding the contract to GradeTech Inc., for a base amount of $678,888, and
authorizing a 15% contingency amount of $101,833. Sufficient funds for the Project are
included in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget. Work is scheduled to begin at the start of the new
fiscal year.
DISCUSSION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) acquired the lower portion of La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) in 2006. The Sears Ranch Road Parking Area and
Driveway Improvements Project (Project) will create a new visitor entrance, trailhead, and
parking area to open the lower Preserve area to the public as part of Phase I Implementation of
the Preserve Master Plan. In addition, the proposed contact includes as an add-alternate item the
removal of two structures with poor structural integrity, miscellaneous debris, and an abandoned
vehicle to remove hazards and further prepare the Preserve for public access. Board
consideration for the demolition of the two structures are part of a separate and prior Board
Agenda Item at this same meeting. If the Board approves this item, then the add-alternate for
this proposed contract would be activated. The two structures recommended for demolition are
located on the former Guerra Zanoni portion of the larger former Driscoll Ranch property. As
R-17-60 Page 2
discussed in the prior Agenda Report, both structures are in poor condition and pose a public
safety hazard, as they are immediately adjacent to the hiking and equestrian trail that will open in
in late 2017. The San Mateo County Historic Resource Advisory Board confirmed on June 17,
2017 that neither structure is historically significant. All lead and asbestos present in the
structures would be remediated prior to demolition. Moreover, consistent with Board policy,
salvageable materials, whether suitable for structural or aesthetic purposes, will be source
segregated on site and either stored for future District reuse or taken by the contractor and
handled consistent with Board policy 4.08, Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion.
The scope of work under the recommended contract includes:
• 1,000 cubic yards (CY) of grading and excavation
• 950 linear feet (LF) of improvements to the Sears Ranch Road driveway, including new
pavement and cleaning of the roadside ditches
• 11,000 square feet (SF) of parking area pavement
• 1,250 SF of concrete sidewalk leading from the parking lot to the trailhead and restroom
• One vault toilet restroom unit
• 2,000 LF of thermoplastic striping
• 630 LF of perimeter cattle fencing
• Demolition and remediation of one residential structure with no foundation
• Demolition and remediation of one shed
• Removal of one abandoned vehicle
• Five bio-swales or vegetated swales for stormwater treatment and conveyance
Contractor Selection
A Request for Bids was issued on April 18, 2017 and released to six (6) builders’ exchanges. A
legal notice was posted in the San Mateo County Times and the San Jose Mercury News, and an
Invitation to Bid was posted on the District website. Staff contacted twenty-one (21) contractors
to notify them of this Project prior to bid. A pre-bid meeting was held on April 27, 2017 with six
contractors in attendance. Two bids were received on May 8, 2017 as listed below:
Bidder Location Total Bid
Percent +/- from
Engineer’s Estimate
($650,000)
GradeTech Inc San Ramon, CA $678,888 4.4 %
D-Line Constructors, Inc. Oakland, CA $963,000 48.2 %
Upon review of the Bid Proposals and confirmation of the contractors' qualifications, the General
Manager recommends awarding the contract to GradeTech Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder
who submitted a responsive bid.
FISCAL IMPACT
A 5-year Measure AA Project List was approved by the Board at their October 29, 2014 meeting
and includes Portfolio #7, La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife
Protection and Conservation Grazing”, with a total portfolio allocation of $14.825 Million.
Funds for this Project are coming from two Key Action Plan Project budgets. MAA07-009
R-17-60 Page 3
covers all construction associated with the parking area and driveway improvements. MAA07-
007 covers all work associated with the demolition, remediation, and removal of the hazardous
structures and debris.
The proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 MAA07-009 budget holds $1,008,112 for the Sears
Ranch Road parking area and driveway improvements, and the MAA07-007 budget holds
$78,650 for the removal of hazardous structures and debris to prepare the Preserve for public
access. There are sufficient funds in the upcoming budget to cover the recommended contract
and expenditures.
MAA07-009 FY2016-17 FY2017-18
Sears Ranch Road parking area and driveway
improvements budget
$206,900 $1,008,112
Spent-to-Date as of 6/15/2017 $110,745 $0
Encumbrances: $6,724 $0
Award of Contract (including 15% contingency): $710,721
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $89,431 $297,391
MAA07-007 FY2016-17 FY2017-18
Demolition and removal of hazardous debris budget $348,150 $78,650
Spent-to-Date as of 6/15/2017 $261,515 $0
Encumbrances: $1,200 $0
Award of Contract: $70,000
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $85,435 $8,650
The following table outlines the Measure AA #007 Portfolio budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal
impact related to the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area and Driveway Improvements Project.
MAA 007 Portfolio Appropriation $14,825,000
Life-to-Date Spent as of 6/15/2017: $10,909,311
Encumbrances: $55,840
Sears Ranch Road parking area and driveway
improvements (including 15% contingency):
$700,221
Demolition and removal of hazardous debris budget
(including 15% contingency):
$80,500
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $3,079,128
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Planning and Natural Resources Committee reviewed the location and conceptual design for
the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area at their April 20, 2016 meeting, held at the La Honda
Elementary School (Report R-16-48). The full Board approved the proposed expanded size and
paved surfacing of the new parking area at their May 25, 2016 meeting (Report R-16-65).
Finally, the Board reviewed the Sears Ranch Road widening, paving, pull-out, and signage as
required by San Mateo County at their January 25, 2017 meeting when a design contract
amendment was approved (Report R-17-02).
R-17-60 Page 4
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Awarding the bid and issuing a contract agreement to construct the Sears Ranch Road Parking
Area and Driveway Improvements Project is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the La Honda Creek Master Plan, approved by the Board on
August 22, 2012 (R-12-83).
The District also concludes that the hazardous remediation and demolition actions will not have a
significant effect on the environment. These actions are categorically exempt from CEQA under
Article 19, Sections 15301(l) and 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
Section 15301 Existing Facilities exempts operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing,
licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or
topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
the time of the lead agency’s determination. The demolition and removal of individual small
structures and improvements are exempt under 15301(l) and would allow for the cleanup and
restoration of the site. A historic survey of the property conducted by a qualified
architectural historian concluded that the structures constructed in the 1900s-1970s does not
warrant listing on the California Register of Historic Places, the local historic resource
inventory, and is not a historic resource under CEQA.
Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land exempts minor grading for erosion control.
A Notice of Exemption covering the demolition of structures and hazardous materials
remediation was filed with the County of San Mateo on June 6, 2017.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the General Manager will enter into a contract with GradeTech Inc. Final contract
signature is subject to meeting all District requirements, such as having all required insurance
and bonding in place. Construction will begin July 2017 and be completed by the end of October
2017.
Attachment(s)
1. Site Access and Project Site Map
Responsible Department Head:
Jason Lin, Engineering and Construction Department Manager
Prepared by:
Matt Brunnings, Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction Department
Dale Grogan, Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction Department
Graphics prepared by:
Torie Robinson, GIS Intern
!P
L
a
H o n d a Creek
W e e ks
C
r
e
ek
H a r r i n g t o n Creek
L a n g l e y C r e ek
Sa n G rego
r
i
o
C
r
e
e
k
Bo g e s s C re e k
Woodha
ms Cr e e k
ÃÆ84
S
e
ars Ranch Road
Be ar G ulc h Rd
H a r r i n g t o n Creek
Trail
Fol
g
e
r
R
a
nchLoopTrail
P
e
e
k
A B o o L n
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
R
o
ute
84
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(MROSD)
April 2017
Sears Ranch Road Improvement and Parking Lot Installation Project
Attachment 1: Site Access and Project Site Map
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
L
a
_
H
o
n
d
a
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
D
r
i
s
c
o
l
l
\
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
_
2
0
1
6
0
3
2
1
\
S
e
a
r
s
R
a
n
c
h
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
_
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
_
2
0
1
7
0
3
3
0
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
t
r
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
0 0.50.25
MilesI
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.
Ã1
Ã92
Ã9
Ã84
Ã280
Ã35
Half Moon Bay
Redwood
City
Palo
Alto
Area of
Detail
ÄÆ84
La Honda
House Demo Site
Parking Lot Site
Project Entrance
Site (Gate LH11)
D
Vehicle Salvage Site
V
MROSD Preserves
Private Property
!P Project Entrance Site
(Gate LH11)
Demo Site
Parking Lot
V Vehicle Salvage Site
D
Sears Ranch
Road Improvement
R-17-73
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 10
AGENDA ITEM
Contract authorization with Santa Clara County FireSafe Council for removal of eucalyptus trees
in Los Trancos Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Santa Clara County FireSafe
Council for the removal of eucalyptus trees in Los Trancos Open Space Preserve for fire safety,
in an amount not to exceed $276,000, for a period from the date of execution through November
30, 2020 with options to extend the length of the contract for an additional two years.
SUMMARY
Approximately 100 eucalyptus trees along Page Mill Road in Los Trancos Open Space Preserve
near Struggle Mountain (Attachments 2 and 3) pose a significant fire hazard to nearby
residences, open space, and the region in general. Eucalyptus trees are highly flammable and can
send embers a long distance causing additional ignitions that can rapidly spread a massive
wildfire. Under District guidance as part of the recommended contract, Santa Clara County
FireSafe Council will conduct assessments, obtain permits, communicate with neighbors, hire
contractors to remove trees, and implement restoration measures. This project is fully budgeted
at $276,000 for Fiscal Year 2017-18. If Santa Clara County FireSafe Council (SCCFSC) does
not complete the project in one year, as a capital improvement project the budgeted funds will
roll over into succeeding years, until the project is completed or the contract expires.
DISCUSSION
Santa Clara County FireSafe Council (SCCFSC) has taken an active role in developing the Santa
Clara County Community Wildfire Prevention Plan (CWPP), which identifies many projects
(education, public outreach, debris chipping, firebreak clearing, and other projects) to improve
community safety in the event of a wildfire. Annex 3 City of Palo Alto of the CWPP refers to the
Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP). The FFMP was created in 1982 and updated in 2009.
It established a goal “to reduce government costs and citizen losses from wildland fire by
increasing initial attack success and/or protecting assets at risk through focused pre-fire
management activities.” The FFMP identified Page Mill Road as a priority for roadside
vegetation management (Attachment 4) to better serve the community as an emergency egress
route and provide access for fire department emergency response vehicles. Since that time, the
City of Palo Alto has contracted with SCCFSC to implement aspects of the FFMP such as
providing community outreach and creating fire breaks along Page Mill Road on City-owned
property. These fuel reduction projects extend beyond the roadside corridor where brush is
R-17-73 Page 2
removed by the city. SCCFSC roadside vegetation management on Page Mill Road on City
property is ongoing. The SSCFSC has also performed fuel reduction work in Los Trancos Open
Space Preserve when funding was available (PG&E Grant, Santa Clara County Fire funding, and
District funding of $5,000.) Additional work is planned on City property as well as in Foothills,
Monte Bello, and Coal Creek Open Space Preserves to complete a firebreak from Foothill
Expressway to Skyline Boulevard.
To enhance the firebreak, the District is proposing to contract with the SCCFSC to manage and
complete the removal of the eucalyptus trees in Los Trancos Open Space Preserve along Page
Mill Road. SCCFSC will coordinate permitting with the City of Palo Alto, which may include:
• Arborist evaluation
• Plan to protect existing native trees
• Plan to protect San Francisco Dusky Footed Woodrat or other protected species
• Site access plan
• Site restoration plan
• Coordinating with other agencies such as Santa Clara County regarding trees on the road
right-of-way
• Assessment of community impact and opinion regarding tree removal, including
viewshed analysis (Attachment 5)
• Presentations to City commissions and councils if needed
Once permitting is in place, SCCFSC may enter directly into contracts with various companies to
prepare environmental documents and plans, remove the trees, and perform site restoration.
They will follow District requirements for all contracts, including insurance requirements,
competitive bidding guidelines, prevailing wage requirements, and other aspects of District
contract language. District staff, including the legal department, will review the contracts.
SCCFSC will bill the District monthly as work is performed.
During preliminary contract discussions, District staff evaluated the California Fire Safe Council
2017 Grants Clearinghouse Program for grant eligibility. The eucalyptus removal is a potential
project, and because SCCFSC was already applying for hazard mitigation/fuel break work along
Page Mill Road (along with a host of other planning and outreach activities), the work became a
likely candidate for inclusion in their application. Therefore, instead of competing with
SCCFSC for a grant, the General Manager signed a letter of commitment (Attachment 6) for the
eucalyptus removal, to attach to their grant application. The commitment was based on prior
Board approval of funding in FY2016-17 for this project and is contingent on Board approval of
the project. This approach allows SCCFSC to submit a more competitive application by
providing them with additional matching funds. If the application is successful, the District will
pay up to $250,000 toward the eucalyptus removal and SCCFSC will be able to perform
additional work funded by the grant, which could include additional firebreak clearing along
Page Mill Road or other projects identified on District property. District staff will work with the
SCCFSC to direct grant funding to projects that support and complement District interests in fire
safety projects on or near District property. A response to the grant request is expected late
summer 2017.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 budget includes $276,000 for the Los Trancos Preserve
eucalyptus removal capital improvement project. There are sufficient funds in the project budget
R-17-73 Page 3
to cover the recommended action and expenditures. As a capital project, if funds are not
expended, they will carry over into following fiscal years.
FY2017-18
Los Trancos Eucalyptus Removal Budget $276,000
Spent–to-Date (as of 6/28/17): $0
Encumbrances: $0
[Recommended Action – Costs]: $276,000
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. The funds for this project may be
counted as matching funds for a grant proposal submitted by the SCCFSC to California Fire Safe
Council on May 12, 2017.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Commitee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. In addition, the District provided
notice to all Page Mill Road neighbors between Skyline Boulevard and Moody Road. The
property owners were also notified of the project in 2015.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The vegetation management activities covered by this contract were reviewed in the
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Program that was approved by the Board on December 10, 2014 (R-
14-148), and the associated mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, the District will enter into a contract with Santa Clara County FireSafe
Council to remove eucalyptus trees along Page Mill Road. Depending on the length of the
permitting process, removal may occur in the next 1-3 years.
Attachment(s)
1. Draft Contract
2. Tree Locations and Property Ownership
3. Aerial View of Tree Locations
4. Palo Alto Evacuation Routes from Foothills Fire Management Plan
5. Draft Viewshed Analysis to be refined in permitting process
6. Letter of Commitment for FireSafe Grant Application
Responsible Department Head:
Brian Malone, Land and Facilities
Prepared by:
R-17-73 Page 4
Craig Beckman, Area Manager, Land and Facilities
Graphics prepared by:
Torie Robinson, GIS Intern
Draft Contract
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRESAFE
COUNCIL FOR REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREES IN LOS TRANCOS PRESERVE
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between Santa Clara County FireSafe Council, a non-profit
organization ("Consultant") and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a public
body of the State of California ("District"). Consultant and District agree:
1. Services. Consultant shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in
excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of the
Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for the sum of $250,000 including all
materials and other reimbursable amounts. Any additional charges related to unforeseen
work shall not exceed $25,000 and shall be approved in advance by District representative.
Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall
contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is
accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were
performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred
and the Consultant's signature.
3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on November 30,
2020 unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. District's
General Manager may, in his/her sole discretion, extend this agreement for two (2) additional
1-year terms. If extended, each respective extension shall be authorized by District in writing
and signed by the General Manager and Consultant.
Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to
completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein.
4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to District for entering into this
Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without
the prior written approval of District. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties
that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the District.
5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of
the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the District, the insurance coverages
specified in Exhibit B, "District Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior
to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates
of Insurance to District.
6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold District, its directors, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims,
suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors,
ATTACHMENT 1
or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such
claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the District, its officers,
employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify
and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California
Civil Code.
District shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Consultant for the sole negligence,
recklessness or willful misconduct of the District, its officers, employees, agents, or
volunteers.
Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does
not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause.
This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance
policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for
damages.
7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by
District for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such
termination, Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services
performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that District may
condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant's delivery to District of any or all
materials described herein. In the event the Consultant ceases performing services under this
Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services
described in this Agreement, Consultant shall, without delay, deliver to District all materials
and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall be
paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of
Consultant's cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional
expenses which District incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment.
8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature,
including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs,
computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions,
prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become
the property of District. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but
not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other
material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this
Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to District at no additional charge and
without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon District's request, Consultant shall
execute appropriate documents to assign to the District the copyright or trademark to work
created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all District property in
Consultant's control or possession immediately upon termination.
9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide
by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of
California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the District. Consultant warrants
that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety
rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a
license or registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or
subcontractors by law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and
in good standing, and Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this
Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable
laws and regulations.
10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently has no
interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the
services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state,
local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter
arise, Consultant shall promptly notify District of the existence of such conflict of interest so
that the District may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further
warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.)
respecting this Agreement.
11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written
or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter
hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a
beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking
established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed
by both Consultant and District's General Manager, and approved as to form by the District's
General Counsel. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to
amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a
breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing
waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of
this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree
that the Agreement on file in the office of District's District Clerk is the version of the
Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the
document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California.
12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other
party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into
this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into
this Agreement.
13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or
tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of
either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the
remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexercised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to
give effect to the intentions of the parties.
14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing
such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage
prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice
by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier ("Courier"), postage
paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same
by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by
the sending facsimile machine's acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv)
by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown
on the receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice,
change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent.
15. Miscellaneous.
a. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the
captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in
the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or
complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor.
b. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement.
c. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine,
the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes
the plural.
d. The terms "shall", will", “must" and "agree" are mandatory. The term "may" is
permissive.
e. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the
same or a different provision of this Agreement.
f. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost
and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific
provision is made otherwise.
g. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to
restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents,
invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and District execute this Agreement.
Attachments:
Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B District Insurance Provisions
SIGNATURE PAGE
EXHIBIT A Scope of Services
Task 1. Program Management
Coordination. Work with the District, other stakeholders, and other interested parties such as
the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, and CAL FIRE, to develop project parameters that
are satisfactory to all.
Explore various project elements including:
• Project phases
• Complete or partial eucalyptus grove removal
• Individual eucalyptus tree removal
• Hazardous fuel removal
• Roadside or wildland fuel break projects in the vicinity
• Tree disposal options such as conversion to mulch, biomass, firewood, or timber
uses
• Protection of native trees and plants in the project area
• Prevention of import or dispersal of insects or pathogens
• Tree planting or other revegetation work
• Protection of slopes
• Development and restoration of haul routes (truck or skid trails)
• Traffic control
• Visual impacts
• Noise impacts
Develop final specific project budgets and plans to submit for permits and approvals
Permits. Obtain Site and Design Review permit from City of Palo Alto as needed to proceed
with removal.
Comply with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Foothills Fire Management Plan, Open
Space Development Criteria, and appropriate city guidelines.
Comply with county and state laws related to trees and forestry practices.
Obtain final approval of project plan from the District.
Communication. Perform outreach with private property owners including written and verbal
communications with approximately 10 residences in the Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California
area currently in the vicinity of the eucalyptus removal project. Provide information and
educational materials for the public.
Contractor management. Develop scope of work proposals, solicit bids, and manage
contract(s) with qualified contractor(s) to remove designated eucalyptus trees in accordance with
terms and conditions of permits
Matching funds. Seek out additional funding for wildfire safety projects to supplement the
District’s contribution and expand on the effectiveness of the eucalyptus and other vegetation
management programs along Page Mill Road. For any grants in which District will be a partner
or provide matching funds, draft and final grant applications will be provided to District for
review. Manage matching funds and grants, if obtained. Include matching contributions in
project budgets.
Task 1 Deliverables: Quarterly reports, monthly invoices, and grant applications as described
above.
Task 1 Budget: No greater than $25,000 per year for first 2 years. Evaluate funding needs for
additional work to revise future budgets
Task 2. Project Implementation
Tree removal. Implement eucalyptus tree removal projects as developed in Task 1.
Vegetation treatments. Implement vegetation treatment projects as developed in Task 1.
Restoration. Implement site restoration projects as developed in Task 1.
Contracts. Follow MROSD contracting procedures including Department of Industrial
Regulation contractor registration, prevailing wage, and insurance requirements. Review
contract with District staff prior to finalizing for work.
Task 2 Deliverables: Completed projects as developed and agreed to in Task 1.
Task 2 Budget: No greater than $200,000 over 3 years.
EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Before beginning any of the services or work called for by any tel111 of this Agreement,
Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement,
and provide proof thereof that is acceptable to the District, the insurance specified herein.
Insurance Requirements.
• Statutory Worker’s Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance
coverage: $1,000,000
• Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000 (Minimum), $2,000,000 Aggregate
• Automobile Liability Insurance – including owned, non-owned and hired vehicles:
$1,000,000 per occurrence
Workers' Compensation. Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's
Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant
shall be provided as required by the California Labor Code.
Commercial General and Automobile Liability. Consultant, at Consultant's own cost and
expense, shall maintain Commercial General and Business Automobile Liability insurance
for the period covered by this Agreement in an amount not less than the amount set forth in
this Exhibit B, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work
contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an
Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the
general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this
Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit.
Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from
bodily and personal injury, including death resulting there from, and damage to property
resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of hired,
owned and non-owned automobiles. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest edition
of the Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001
and Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 1 (any
auto). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.
a. A policy endorsement must be delivered to District demonstrating that District, its
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects
each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of
Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and
completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by
Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by Consultant. The
coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to
District, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims
made basis.
c. An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance and that no other
insurance affected by the District will be called upon to contribute to a loss under the
coverage.
d. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shah not
affect coverage provided to District and its officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers.
e. Insurance is to be placed with California-admitted insurers.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose the self-insured retentions
and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this
Agreement. Any self-insured retention or deductible is subject to approval of District.
During the period covered by this Agreement, upon express written authorization of District
Legal Counsel, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with
respect to District, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The District Legal
Counsel may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels
upon a requirement that Consultant procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and
related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all
respects to each of them.
Notice of Reduction in Coverage. In the event that any coverage required under the Agreement
is reduced, limited, or materially affected in any other matter, Consultant shall provide
written notice to District at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than
five days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage.
Remedies. In addition to any other remedies District may have if Consultant fails to provide or
maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein
required, District may, at its sole option:
• Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such
insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;
• Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment which
becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment,
until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof;
• Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an
alternative to other remedies District may have and is not the exclusive remedy for
Consultant's failure to maintain insurance or secure appropriate endorsements.
Tree Locations and Property Ownership
ATTACHMENT 2
Aerial View of Tree Locations
ATTACHMENT 3
Palo Alto Evacuation Routes from Foothills Fire Management Plan
ATTACHMENT 4
Draft Viewshed Analysis to be refined in permitting process
(Shaded areas represent locations that have views of the trees recommended for removal, unless local
vegetation or structures obstruct these views)
ATTACHMENT 5
Letter of Commitment for FireSafe Grant Application
ATTACHMENT 6
R-17-54
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 11
AGENDA ITEM
Contract Amendment with MKThink for Basic Programming for the Administrative Office
Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with MKThink to complete
basic programming services for the Administrative Office Project in an amount of $48,000, for a
total not-to-exceed contract amount of $117,000.
SUMMARY
The General Manager entered into a contract under his purchasing authority with MKThink in
2016 to assist the Board of Directors (Board) with assessing the long-term Administration Office
(AO) options and locations that best meet current and future needs. On January 25, 2017, the
Board considered MKThink’s findings and the resulting General Manager’s recommendations,
and selected the option to build a new, three-story AO onsite, while concurrently directing the
General Manager to continue monitoring the real estate market for opportunities to purchase a
suitable building at a different site. To proceed with next steps, the General Manager
recommends amending the contract with MKThink in an amount of $48,000 to gather basic
programming requirements. This work is necessary whether the District builds a new office
onsite or purchases and remodels another building. Basic programming would rely on input
received from the Board and all departments, and is expected to be completed in two to three
months after the work commences. This information will provide the exterior and interior space
requirements to fold into a Request for Qualifications and Proposals to select with confidence a
best-fit architecture firm to continue with more detailed programming, design, and construction
documentation. The fiscal year (FY) 2016-17 budget includes sufficient funds to initiate the
recommended contract amendment and budget is included in the proposed FY2017-18 budget.
DISCUSSION
At its January 25, 2017 meeting, the Board selected the option to rebuild the AO onsite and
replace it with an approximately 45,000 square-foot, three-story structure with two to three levels
of underground parking. The Board also directed the General Manager to continue monitoring
the real estate market for opportunities to purchase another building elsewhere. Since the January
Board meeting, staff worked on scoping the next phase of work and met with the Facilities Ad
Hoc Committee on April 24, 2017, where the Committee expressed support for the Project’s next
steps, which include basic programming as described below:
1) Identification of Board and department space needs;
R-17-54 Page 2
2) Confirmation of the Board’s and General Manager’s high-level interior and exterior
space parameters and goals, and;
3) Verification of the building size needed to fit the basic program.
MKThink would assess at a high level the space needs and goals of the Board and each
department for the new building. This information would confirm the building size parameters
needed, and based on the square footage and total anticipated occupancy, the general parking
requirements triggered per the local zoning code. Finally, given that the City of Los Altos is
considering changes to the zoning ordinance, MKThink would also confirm how the zoning
changes might affect any development plans the District might have.
The General Manager recommends continuing with MKThink to complete the tasks above. Over
the past year, MKThink has demonstrated their strength in assessment and analysis, working
closely with the Board, Facilities Ad Hoc Committee, General Manager’s Office, and staff to
gain a good understanding of District functions, work culture, and both current and future
operational needs. They have proven to be highly adept, expedient, qualified, and knowledgeable
of the District, and can leverage their institutional knowledge to move quickly through these
discrete tasks.
Findings from the basic programming work will be incorporated into a future Request for
Qualifications and Proposals, whether the architectural services are for building a new office
onsite or remodeling a new building purchased elsewhere. Basic programming is necessary to
assess at a high level the basic interior and exterior space needs for a future AO. This
information will allow prospective design proposers to assemble the appropriate teams and
develop meaningful proposals to best respond to District goals and objectives. When the time
comes, the General Manager recommends full Board involvement in interviewing the top three
to five architectural design teams and making the final selection. The selected architectural
design team would then implement the next phases of work, beginning with more in-depth,
detailed programming and needs assessment prior to initiating engineering and design work. This
programming and needs assessment will build upon the basic programming and take it further
into determining adjacencies and placement of spaces. This work will need to factor in the actual
building space, which will either be contained within the footprint of an existing, newly
purchased building or remain more flexible with a new rebuild at the existing AO site.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended total contract amendment amount is $48,000 ($41,600 base fee and a $6,040
or 15% contingency) for a total not-to-exceed new contract amount of $117,000. The FY2016-17
budget includes $120,000 for the AO Project (Project #31202), and includes sufficient funding to
begin work under the recommended contract amendment. Funds to complete the work are
included in the proposed FY2017-18 budget, which the Board adopted on June 14, 2017.
FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18
Project #31202 Budget $120,000 $805,000
Spent to Date (as of 04/04/17): $57,797
MKThink Contract Balance: $11,203
MKThink Contract Amendment $0 $48,000
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $51,000 $757,000
R-17-54 Page 3
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Facilities Ad Hoc Committee met on April 24, 2017 and as part of this meeting expressed
support for the next steps, which include basic programming for the AO.
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 (CEQA). In the
future, the District will need to conduct CEQA review for the Project.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to continue working with
MKThink to begin the basic programming phase of the project. In the meantime, Real Property
will continue to seek real estate opportunities near the existing Administrative Office to purchase
a new office/commercial property.
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Department
Prepared by:
Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department
R-17-86
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 12
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract with PGA Design, Inc., to provide design and engineering services for the
Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with PGA Design, Inc., to provide
design and engineering services, complete construction plans, and provide permitting support
for the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project at Bear Creek Redwoods
Open Space Preserve for a not-to-exceed amount of $472,008.
2. Authorize a separate contract allowance of $47,200 specifically for additional permitting,
design, and public meeting preparation and attendance related to the Santa Clara County
Historical Heritage Commission permitting process that are beyond the current scope of work
to avoid potential implementation delays.
3. Authorize a 15% contingency of $70,800 to cover potential unforeseen design requirements.
SUMMARY
Design, engineering, and construction documentation services are required to implement critical
actions of the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan, which the Board of
Directors (Board) approved as part of the larger Preserve Plan on January 2017. Based on the
results of a Request for Proposals (RFP), the General Manager recommends awarding a contract
to PGA Design, Inc., for a total not-to-exceed amount of $590,008. This includes a 15%
contingency of $70,800, and a separate contract allowance of $47,200, to be reserved specifically
for additional services related to the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission (HHC)
permit process that are beyond the current scope of work to avoid project delays. This allowance
is highly recommended given the complexity of the permitting process through the HHC.
Sufficient funds for the contract are included in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget and three year
Capital Improvement Program.
BACKGROUND
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve is targeted to open to the public in late 2018, and
intensive efforts to prepare the Preserve for anticipated high levels of visitor use are well
underway. Clean up, stabilization, and minimal rehabilitation of the former Alma College site,
located at the main Preserve entrance, is critical to providing a safe and inviting visitor
experience at the Preserve.
R-17-86 Page 2
As part of the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan, the Board approved implementation of the
Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan (R-17-15). Prior to this approval, the
Board examined the Rehabilitation Plan, including estimated costs and phasing at a study session
and a regular meeting (R-16-33; R-16-50).
Initial Rehabilitation Plan actions include:
• Hazardous materials assessment and remediation
• Historic documentation and demolition of the garage, classroom, and 1950 library
• Structural stabilization of the Chapel and 1934 library (does not include potential future
partner-funded work to re-use the Chapel)
• Revegetation, stabilization, and/or rehabilitation of the key landscape elements that
define the historic character of the site,
• Visitor amenities, including interpretive signs, picnic tables and benches, and access and
safety improvements.
Implementation costs are approximately $4 million. Under Measure AA, $4.1 million is
allocated to “rehabilitate the Alma College site”.
DISCUSSION
The District requires the services of a qualified consultant team to complete design development,
construction documentation, and permitting for the initial Rehabilitation Plan actions. The team
must include a cultural landscape specialist, structural engineer, architectural historian, civil,
geotechnical and environmental engineers, and an interpretive designer. Staff released a Request
for Proposals (RFP) on April 17, 2017, through a targeted mailing to 13 firms with known
expertise in cultural landscapes, as well as posting on the District website. Staff also contacted
consultants by phone to solicit proposals, and presented the project at the California Preservation
Foundation annual conference on May 11, 2017, in part to generate interest in the project. A pre-
proposal site tour was held on site on May 5, 2017, and was attended by 12 consultants
representing four teams.
All public contracting code requirements were met, and exceeded, in this robust RFP process and
targeted solicitation. Nevertheless, the District received only one proposal from PGA Design,
Inc. Factors influencing the low response to the RFP include the highly specialized nature of the
project, a perception of the overwhelming advantage of the incumbent consultant team (led by
PGA Design, Inc.), and an overall thriving construction market. Four of the targeted firms, Page
and Turnbull, BFS Landscape Architects, Callendar Associates, and Harris Design, immediately
contacted staff to decline the RFP, citing extremely full workloads and perceived low potential
return on the time investment in assembling such a specialized and large project team for the
proposal. Following the pre-proposal site tour, two firms contacted staff to further discuss the
project and confirm that the incumbent firm was expected to propose on the project. These
firms, Restoration Design Group and Architectural Resource Group, subsequently declined to
submit proposals for the RFP.
The goal of an RFP is to solicit interest and receive proposals from firms that include
information on the suggested approach and on the team of qualified experts that will carry out
the goals of the project. Proposals are reviewed and scored against specific selection criteria to
identify the top ranking proposer who offers the best package and final product. Fees are one of
the factors considered, but not a determining factor. When only one proposal is received and no
R-17-86 Page 3
comparison is possible, staff examines the proposed scope and fee very carefully, and attempts to
compare the proposal to those received for similar projects. In this case, the project team
performed a thorough analysis of the one proposal, resulting in greater clarification and
refinement of several key scope items. The proposed design fee was also compared with several
recent design projects (including the Bear Creek Stables Improvements, Sears Ranch Road
Parking Area, Mount Umunhum Summit Project, and the Alma College Parking Area) and found
to be comparable or below other comparable projects. Moreover, PGA Design maintains a
proven track record at the District in providing high-quality work products on time and within
budget, including design, engineering, and construction documentation for the Sears Ranch Road
Parking Area. The multidisciplinary project team includes Fall Creek Engineering, DCI
Structural Engineers, Butano Geotechnical, Knapp Architects, Rincon Environmental, and
Sibbett Group, a renowned interpretive design firm. The Alma College site would greatly benefit
from these firms’ extensive, exemplary experience.
A standard contingency of 15% is recommended to cover unforeseen expenses. In addition, due
to the complex nature of the Historical Heritage Commission permit process, a 10% allowance
for new issues that may arise during permitting is also recommended. These additional funds
would be added to the contract only if needed, and upon the approval of the General Manager.
Please note that the proposed contract does not include construction administration services at
this time; the extent of these services will be better defined once the schematic designs are
completed, at which time an amendment for inclusion of these future services will be brought to
the Board for approval.
As a rule of thumb, design and engineering fees are typically estimated to be 10 to 20% of the
construction cost, depending on project complexity and level of uncertainty. The Alma College
construction cost is estimated at $4 Million. Therefore, the design fee is expected to be between
$400,000 and $800,000. The proposed PGA contract, with contingency, is well within this range.
The PGA contract fees by task are provided in the table below.
Task Description/Deliverable Fee
1 Work Plan/ MS Project Schedule $4,390
2 Interpretive Plan/Site Plan and Design of Four Interpretive
Features*
$68,825*
3 Historic Structures Documentation/Archival Materials* $17,170*
4 Site Survey/Topographic Base Map $18,535
5 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment/Remediation Work
Plan**
$44,030**
6 Demolition and Site Improvements Plans and Specifications $274,528
7 Project Management/Project Log, Pay Applications, etc. $34,120
Direct expenses $10,410
Total fee, less contingencies and allowances $472,008
*Required as mitigation for removal of the classroom and new library buildings
**Required as mitigation for potential environmental impacts of hazardous materials, including
three (3) potential underground fuel storage tanks, lead, and asbestos.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 budget includes $575,600 for the Alma College Cultural
Landscape Rehabilitation Project (MAA 21-006), and the three-year Capital Improvement
Program includes additional budget of $3,077,850 for the Project. The following table outlines
R-17-86 Page 4
the Measure AA Portfolio 21 budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal impact related to Project MAA
21-006.
FY2016-17 FY2017-18 FY2018-19 FY2019-20
MAA 21-006 Budget: $347,050 $575,600 $900,550 $2,177,300
Spent to Date (as of 05/31/2017): $179,964
Encumbrances: $8,804
H.T. Harvey & Assoc.
Proposed Amendment:
$0 $35,000 $15,000 $7,000
PGA Design. Inc. Agreement
Proposed Amount:
0 300,000 290,008 TBD
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $258,282 $240,000 $595,542 $2,170,300
MAA 21 Portfolio Allocation: $17,478,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 05/31/2017): $649,814
Total Encumbrances: $622,869
HT Harvey & Assoc/Bat Relocation and Habitat Replacement $80,905
Proposed Award of Contract to PGA Design (MAA 21-006) $590,008
Balance Remaining (Proposed): $15,534,404
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
Rehabilitation of the former Alma College site was guided by committee and public input at
three meetings of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee, including one neighborhood
meeting, held in Los Gatos on April 29, 2015. In addition, the full Board received a presentation
of the Rehabilitation Plan at its June 24, 2015 meeting, and reviewed the information on March
23, 2016 and May 11, 2016. The Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan was
approved by the Board as part of the larger Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan on January 25,
2017.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. Additional notice was
provided to interested parties of the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan and historic resources,
as well as adjoining neighbors of Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan was included in the Draft and Final
EIR completed for the Preserve Plan, which was certified by the Board at the January 25, 2017
meeting (R-17-15).
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board authorization, the General Manager will direct staff to enter into a contract with
PGA Design, Inc. Staff will continue to pursue a demolition permit with Santa Clara County for
the removal of select Board-approved buildings. Permitting is anticipated to be complete within
one year, with implementation of the initial Rehabilitation Plan actions complete by 2021.
R-17-86 Page 5
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Lisa Bankosh, Planner III
R-17-79
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 13
AGENDA ITEM
Memorandum of Understanding with Santa Clara Valley Water District for riparian invasive
species removal in Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to receive $200,000 per year for up to five
years, to implement invasive species removal in Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve;
authorize the General Manager to approve subsequent Task Orders resulting from the MOU.
2. Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Budget Amendment, adding $200,000 to the Bear
Creek Redwoods Invasive Weed Treatment budget (MAA21-007).
3. Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with Ecological Concerns of Santa Cruz,
CA, adding $200,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $573,483, to perform work
associated with the MOU. The contract amendment would be funded through funds secured
under the MOU.
SUMMARY
The Santa Clara Valley Water District invited the District to enter into a MOU under the Safe,
Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program. This MOU would provide the District
$200,000 per year for five years, with the possibility of extending for an additional five years, to
remove priority invasive species within Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. This work
would expand current plans for trailside invasive species removal to include removal along
riparian corridors.
DISCUSSION
The District acquired Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (BCR) in 2000 after an initial
800-acre acquisition by Peninsula Open Space Trust, and it has since expanded to nearly 1,500
acres. In January 2017, the Board approved the BCR Preserve Plan, which identifies long-term
public access and stewardship actions for BCR. Additionally, a Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Integrated Pest Management Program was certified in 2014. BCR is scheduled to
open to the general public in 2018, and due to its accessibility, recreational value, and established
community of passionate and dedicated users from the tenants and Friends of Bear Creek stables,
visitor use is expected to be high.
R-17-79 Page 2
BCR contains extensive invasive plants populations that are associated with human disturbance.
These invasive plants have spread and established into native plant communities such as coastal
scrub, oak woodlands, and even closed-canopy coniferous forest that often resists invasion from
non-native plants. To address this issue, in 2016 District staff contracted with consultants to
create an Invasive Pest Management (IPM) Plan for BCR. The Plan includes a three-year control
strategy for invasive species, prioritizing trail and roadside removal sites across BCR. High
priority species for removal include perennial vines (such as English and cape ivy) and broom
species (French, Scotch, and Spanish). As drafted, the IPM Plan prioritizes invasive removal in
critical areas to prepare for public access.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has funding available under Measure B, the
Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program, which was approved by voters in
2012. This 15-year program was established to provide a long-term safe and reliable water
supply within Santa Clara County. With these funds, SCVWD invited the District to enter into a
MOU under the D2: Revitalize Stream, Upland and Wetland Habitat program, which is one of
five priority programs under Measure B. Funding under this program is directed towards
removing non-native, invasive plants, and revegetating habitat with native species.
This MOU will expand the District’s ability to focus on invasive removal along riparian
corridors throughout BCR. Once the MOU is in place, District staff will work with SCVWD to
create Task Orders that outline specific invasive removal goals and objectives each year. Near-
term removal will target English ivy along riparian corridors on the west side of BCR, which will
open to the public first. Secondary removal efforts will target French Broom within the same
geographic locations.
To accomplish this work, District staff will augment the current contract with Ecological
Concerns, who has been conducting the invasive removal work under a 3-year contract begun on
May 4, 2016. This additional work represents an increase in invasive removal of about 66.5
additional gross acres. In addition, District staff will work to coordinate volunteer removal
projects to augment the Ecological Concerns’ efforts, with a goal of having one invasive removal
project per month dedicated to this work. As part of these volunteer projects, District staff will
educate participants about invasive species by inviting staff as speakers as part of its
commitment to conduct education and outreach through this MOU.
The original scope of this MOU pertains to BCR. Once invasive plant species in the riparian
corridor are under adequate control, the MOU agreement may be amended to include other
preserves under District management that also lie within the SCVWD watershed lands.
Administrative requirements for this work under the MOU include monthly invoicing to
SCVWD and annual reporting, including specific Geographic Information System (GIS) data
standards, which the GIS team has reviewed and approved.
FISCAL IMPACT
This MOU will represent a positive fiscal impact for the District, with a total grant receipt of up
to $200,000 annually for five years, with a possibility of extending the agreement for another
five years, for a total receipt of up to $2,000,000. This grant receipt will have an equal and
corresponding increase in the Invasive Pest Management budget for Portfolio 21, Project 007
(MAA21-007). See Attachment 1 for Budget Amendment.
R-17-79 Page 3
The FY2017-18 budget includes $169,604 for the MAA21-007 BCR Invasive Species Removal.
There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and
expenditures.
FY2017-18
Project 21-007 Budget $169,604
Ecological Concerns Contract Amendment Amount $200,000
Budget increase (SCVWD Grant) ($200,000)
Balance Remaining (Proposed): $169,604
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 21 budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal
impact related to the Bear Creek Redwoods Invasive Species Removal.
MAA 21 Portfolio Appropriation $17,478,000
Life-to-Date Spent (5/31/17) $649,814
Encumbrances $622,869
Ecological Concerns Contract Amendment Amount $200,000
Grant Revenue of $200,000 annually for 5 years ($200,000)
Balance Remaining (Proposed): $16,205,317
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee. However, the ABC Committee
meeting was briefed on this MOU during the May 31, 2017 meeting. See Attachment 2 for
meeting minutes.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The vegetation management activities covered by this contract have been previously reviewed in
the following environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act, and the
associated mitigation measures haven been incorporated into the project:
• Environmental Impact Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Program approved by the Board on December 10, 2014 (R-
14-148)
• Environmental Impact Report for the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan
approved by the Board on January 25, 2017 meeting (R-17-15).
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval, District staff will work with SCVWD to outline the scope of the first Task
Order, with anticipated work to begin in Fall 2017. First year activities will focus on English ivy
removal in BCR on the west side of BCR. District staff will secondarily focus on French broom
removal in similar locations. See Attachment 3 for locations of invasive species within 260 feet
of riparian corridors where removals will take place.
R-17-79 Page 4
Attachments
1. Budget Amendment
2. ABC Committee minutes from May 31, 2017 meeting
3. Invasive species map for Bear Creek Redwoods
Responsible Department Heads:
Stefan Jaskulak, CFO/Director of Administrative Services
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resource Manager
Prepared by:
Melanie Askay, Grants Specialist, Administrative Services
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources
Contact person:
Melanie Askay, Grants Specialist, Administrative Services
Resolutions/2017/17-__SCVWD-InvaseiveSpeciesRemovalGrant_Budget Adjustment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 17-___
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2017 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District adopted the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget and Action Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District does resolve as follows:
SECTION ONE. Approve the recommended budget amendments to the FY2017-18
Budget for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, increasing Grant Revenue by
$200,000 and increasing budgeted expenditures in the Bear Creek Redwoods Invasive Weed
Treatment Budget (MAA21-007) as follows:
Budget Amendment
Description
Adopted Budget Budget Amendment Amended Budget
Bear Creek Redwoods
Invasive Weed
Treatment Budget
(MAA21-007)
$169,604 $200,000 $369,604
SECTION TWO. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance with said budget by
fund.
SECTION THREE. Except as herein modified, the FY 2017-18 Budget and Action
Plan, Resolution No. 17-14 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on ___, 2017, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
ATTACHMENT 1
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
1
ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET COMMITTEE
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
May 31, 2017
DRAFT MINUTES
ROLL CALL
Director Cyr called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
Members Present: Jed Cyr and Yoriko Kishimoto
Members Absent: Curt Riffle
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Counsel Hilary
Stevenson, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Assistant General
Manager Ana Ruiz, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
Jennifer Woodworth, Grants Specialist Melanie Askay, Senior Property
Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda
and moved Item 4 to be heard after Item 1.
VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Riffle absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. Approve the May 2, 2017 Action Plan & Budget Committee Minutes.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the
Action Plan and Budget Committee minutes for May 2, 2017.
VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Riffle absent)
2. Status Update on 2017 Grant-Related Priorities for the District (R-17-80)
Attachment 2
Action Plan & Budget Committee May 31, 2017
2
Item 2 was heard after Item 4.
Grants Specialist Melanie Askay provided the staff presentation describing the goals of seeking
grants, including to offset and leverage existing funds, increase District impact, and expand the
District’s responsiveness to current conservation challenges. Ms. Askay outlined the District’s
grant-seeking principles, techniques for leveraging District funds, and near-term grants program
priorities. Currently, she is working to identify and apply for grants, build relationships, develop
a grants workflow, build a grants database, etc. Finally, long-term priorities include development
of a robust grants program, streamline policies and processes, and staff education.
Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of using grant funds to leverage Measure AA funds to enable
the District to complete projects in all 25 Measure AA portfolios.
Public comment opened at 3:41 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 3:41 p.m.
No Committee action required.
3. New Board Policy 3.09 – Debt Management Policy (R-17-81)
Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak explained the California Debt and Investment Advisory
Commission requires the District to have a debt management policy in order to issue new debt.
Benefits include establishing standard operating procedures, supporting transparent and
consistent financial decisions, consistency and instruction for new staff, etc. The proposed policy
outlines how District debt will be limited, structured, issued, and managed. Finally, the proposed
policy describes various other debt-related controls, reporting requirements, etc.
Public comment opened at 3:58 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 3:58 p.m.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to recommend
approval of the Board Policy 3.09 - Debt Management Policy.
VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Riffle absent)
4. Confirm Two Changes to the proposed Fiscal Year 2017-18 Action Plan and Budget
(R-17-82)
Item 4 was heard after Item 1.
General Manager Steve Abbors provided introductory comments describing the Board’s previous
decisions related the Mt Umunhum Radar Tower, including the Board’s discussion at the May
Attachment 2
Action Plan & Budget Committee May 31, 2017
3
24, 2017 regarding proposed Fiscal Year 2017-18 funding for a second assessment of the Radar
Tower. As a result of that discussion, District staff has proposed leveraging grant funds to
complete the assessment.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz reported the interim repairs for the Radar Tower were
completed in 2016, and additional repairs are needed to continue to protect the public who will
soon have access to the exterior of the Radar Tower. Ms. Ruiz described numerous repairs that
are needed to restore the long term integrity of the building.
Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the current state of the Radar Tower walls.
Ms. Ruiz explained the interim repairs were only meant to last five years, and the exterior of the
building is currently safe for public access.
Director Cyr inquired regarding the full cost of the second assessment.
Ms. Ruiz explained additional funds would likely be needed to review the initial assessment and
build from that to determine what long-term repairs would be needed. The $478,000 proposed
budget includes the assessment, development of plans and specifications based on the
assessment, permitting fees, construction documents, etc.
Public comment opened at 2:46 p.m.
Sam Drake, President of the Umunhum Conservancy, expressed concern regarding his
organization’s understanding of the proposal before Committee and stated that until the assessment
is complete, it is difficult to determine who would fund repairs. Mr. Drake spoke in favor of private
funding to accelerate repairs beyond the District’s schedule or repairs beyond the District’s planned
repairs. Mr. Drake spoke in favor Santa Clara County listing the Radar Tower as a historic landmark.
Director Kishimoto requested additional information regarding the Conservancy’s fundraising.
Mr. Drake explained the Conservancy has not actively fundraised since June 2016 and is waiting for
list of specific repairs to be completed. In 2012, a citizen offered $200,000 for Radar Tower repair,
and Mr. Drake believes the funds will be made available once the Conservancy raises $200,000 in
matching funds.
Bob Wallace inquired if members of the public can be directly involved in the decision process
stating the Radar Tower represents something useless from the military and a waste of taxpayer
money.
Lester Ernest formerly worked on the SAGE radar defense system and stated the computers at the
Radar Tower were unable to process the radar system data. For twenty-five years, the fraudulent
system continued to operate. Mr. Ernest suggested including a plaque explaining the truth of the
defense system and offered to fund creation of a plaque.
Kalen Gallagher, member of the Campbell Union School District School Board but speaking for
himself, spoke in favor of the Radar Tower and spoke regarding students that enjoy the tower. Mr.
Gallagher spoke in favor of protecting the Radar Tower for the community.
Attachment 2
Action Plan & Budget Committee May 31, 2017
4
Melany Moore President of the Summit Riders Horseman’s Association thanked General Manager
Abbors for offering to return to the Board to request additional funding if grant funding is not
available.
Public comment closed at 3:02 p.m.
In response to questions regarding the District’s previous use of outside funds to finance repairs
to District buildings, Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick explained that the
District entered into a cooperative agreement with the Levin family for the Fremont Older home,
in which the family funded a majority of the renovations to the house.
Ms. Ruiz explained that for Picchetti Winery the District’s lessee pays rent, and current and former
lessees completed substantial repairs to the site. The District wrote letters in support of the lessee’s
grant applications and did complete the seismic repairs to the winery building.
Director Cyr spoke in favor of the District paying for the assessment only, but not the permitting or
designs.
Ms. Ruiz explained the assessment alone may cost approximately $200,000.
Mr. Abbors reported the staff can look for other grant opportunities, including Santa Clara County or
other sources.
Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of the District funding 50% of the project.
Director Kishimoto spoke regarding the need for the District to seek partners and other funding
sources to complete Measure AA projects. Additionally, Director Kishimoto requested the
Conservancy only disseminate facts related to the District and its work related to the Radar Tower.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to confirm and
recommend to the full Board the allocation of $236,000 from District General Funds – Capital
and $236,000 from Grants/Partners/Other to fund structural investigations to identify all work
required to fully implement the Seal and Retain option, which was previously approved by the
Board of Directors, as well as design plans and permitting fees for the Board-approved repairs.
These repairs will also ensure the protection of public health and safety given that the perimeter
area will be open to the public starting September 15, 2017.
VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Riffle absent)
Ms. Ruiz summarized the Board’s previous actions related to allocations for the Bear Creek
Stables Site Plan Implementation Project, including high priority improvements. The
recommended action is to make changes to the proposed Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget to reflect
the Board’s previous decision.
Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the cost of improvements for the stable boarder areas.
Planner III Gretchen Laustsen explained the cost breakdown for public and private areas of the
stables is not complete and is planned for presentation to the Board in September.
Attachment 2
Action Plan & Budget Committee May 31, 2017
5
Director Kishimoto expressed her opinion that taxpayer funds should not be used for the private
areas of the stables.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to confirm and
recommend to the full Board the allocation of $3 Million from District Measure AA, $500,000
from District General Fund – Capital, and $1,650,000 from Grants/Partners/Other to fund the
three-year capital improvement work for the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation
Project (MAA 21-004).
VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Riffle absent)
ADJOURNMENT
Director Cyr adjourned the meeting of the Action Plan and Budget Committee of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 4:02 p.m.
__________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
Attachment 2
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
B e a r C r e e k Road
Black Rd
Old SantaC
r
u
z
Highwa
y
Sum
m
i
t
R
o
a
d
Tho m psonR o a d
Ã35 Ã17
10
0
0
8
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1800
16
0
0
22
0
0
16
0
0
14
0
0
18
0
0
2
2
0
0
20
0
0
20
0
0
20
0
0
14
0
0
1
4
0
0
1000
220
0
A l d e r croft Creek
Z
a
y
a
n
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
D y e r C r e e k
C o lli n s C r e e k
Briggs Creek
W e b b Creek
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Bear Creek Redwoods OSP: Invasive Species
May 2017
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
B
e
a
r
_
C
r
e
e
k
_
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
s
\
I
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
_
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
\
B
C
R
_
I
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
s
N
e
a
r
W
a
t
e
r
_
2
0
1
7
0
4
2
6
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
0 0.250.125
MilesI
(MROSD)
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.
Ã1
Ã9
Ã880
Ã17
Ã84
Ã280Ã35
Half Moon Bay
Mountain
View
Palo
Alto
Cupertino
Santa
Cruz
Milpitas
Area of
Detail
LowerLake
MudLake
UpperLake
BEAR CREEK
REDWOODS
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
MROSD Preserves
Private Property
260 ft Buffer TrailMinor Paved Road
Minor Unpaved Road
Unmaintained Road Width
Freeway/Highway
Highway or Major Road
Invasive Species
English ivy
French broom
Harding grass
Italian thistle
Yellow starthistle
Periwinkle
Attachment 3
R-17-75
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017
AGENDA ITEM 14
AGENDA ITEM
Construction of Agricultural Workforce Housing in the Former Driscoll Ranch Area of La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve construction of agricultural workforce housing at either 900 Sears Ranch Road or
1150 Sears Ranch Road in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve to serve the conservation
grazing program.
2. Adopt a resolution (see Attachment 1) authorizing the General Manager to enter into a
partnership agreement with San Mateo County for a forgivable fifteen-year, no-interest
Farmworker Housing Pilot Program Phase III loan for $150,000 and permanently designate
the residence as agricultural workforce housing.
3. Authorize the General Manager to amend the lease with AGCO Hay LLC, the onsite
conservation-grazing tenant, to formalize the requirements of the Farmworker Housing Pilot
Program Phase III between the District and the grazing tenant.
SUMMARY
The San Mateo County Agricultural Needs Assessment report (2016) determined that viable
agricultural workforce housing for families is a priority need on the southern San Mateo Coast.
As the former Driscoll Ranch is the District’s largest year round conservation grazing operation
(3,681 acres), housing a ranch worker onsite is essential for managing the grazing operation,
which supports the District’s coastal mission to support agriculture and resource protection
through grassland management. The District began to partner with San Mateo County (County)
in 2015 to provide habitability improvements for an existing District-owned agricultural
workforce-housing unit at 900 Sears Ranch Road (Sears house). However, County and District
staff determined improvements to the existing unit were infeasible due to the poor condition of
the structure, and the County red-tagged the house. Since then, District staff and the County
have been evaluating replacement of the agricultural workforce housing at this location. After
assessing housing locations and developing cost estimates for a three (3) bedroom, two (2) bath,
1,200 square foot modular home, staff has identified two alternative rebuilding sites pending a
water availability assessment.
The County has continued to refine its Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Program to offer a
forgivable, no-interest loan up to $150,000 to partners for new construction with the requirement
that the new house remain occupied as agricultural workforce housing for its lifetime.
R-17-75 Page 2
Rebuilding agricultural workforce housing and entering into a loan agreement with the County to
offset costs provides a partnership opportunity to construct needed housing for management of
the largest District conservation-grazing lease.
DISCUSSION
In May 2014, San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley’s office contacted the District to
discuss a new Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program they were developing with
funding from San Mateo County Department of Housing and San Mateo County Measure A.
The intent of this Pilot Program was to build partnerships and provide the resources to enable
farmers and agricultural landowners to improve family housing for the County’s low-income
agriculture workforce. District staff and Supervisor Don Horsley and his staff toured four
District residences, including the Sears house, which housed the ranch worker (and family) for
AGCO Hay LLC, the District’s grazing tenant at Driscoll Ranch. This residence is included in
the Driscoll Ranch grazing lease (grazing lease) and required a set of upgrades to improve the
living conditions for the ranch worker and his family. In June 2015, the District approved a
partnership with the County of San Mateo (County) to provide habitability improvements to the
Sears house (R-15-88).
When demolition of the exterior siding began, the District discovered a lack of foundation under
the southwestern section of the house and a very thin cement slab under the remainder. In
addition, the framing and shear wall was not adequate to allow the house to sustain construction
of a new foundation. Supervisor Don Horsley’s staff and District staff concurred that the project
could not proceed under the rehabilitation agreement and that the house was not habitable by the
ranch worker and his family. The residence was red-tagged by the County. The County worked
with the District to discuss the next steps for demolition and explain the requirements for
rebuilding this residence. Supervisor Horsley’s office has ensured funding over the past two
years for the District to rebuild this residence.
When the residence was red-tagged, the ranch worker and his family relocated to an onsite trailer
for housing until the flagpole house located across from the Event Center became available in
January 2016. They are temporarily residing at the flagpole house and staff have been working
since then to identify a preferred location to rebuild the Sears house. The Sears house location is
preferable because it is located adjacent to the barn used to store ranch equipment and it will
allow the ranch worker to observe the Sears Ranch Staging area as well as the public-livestock
interaction.
For a timeline of events regarding Agricultural Workforce Housing, please see Attachment 2.
Housing Assessment
Before proceeding with rebuilding agricultural workforce housing at the Sears house site, the
Board requested a housing assessment as part of the FY2016-17 Action Plan. Staff developed
the Lower La Honda Creek OSP Housing Assessment in late 2016 addressing all residences and
their possible viability (See Attachments 3 & 5), with an update in 2017 following the
demolitions of the Sears house and the Wool house (R-16-112). This assessment recommends
rebuilding an agricultural workforce residence at either the Sears house site or 1150 Sears Ranch
Road (known as the kennel house). A separate Board report (R-17-74) proposes the kennel
house for demolition. Both of these houses are not historically significant.
R-17-75 Page 3
Site Selection
To adequately compare the alternative sites for the proposed rebuild of agricultural workforce
housing, District staff and AECOM (consultant) developed a set of cost estimates for
construction of a 3BR, 2BA 1,200 square foot modular home or traditional home. AGCO Hay
LLC, the Driscoll Ranch grazing tenant, runs a year round cattle-grazing operation requiring a
full-time agricultural worker onsite. The housing should be adequate to accommodate the
agricultural worker and his family (4 people). The rent for this house is included as part of the
grazing lease. Detailed estimates, including prevailing wage and contingences, are shown in
Attachment 4. A modular home at the Sears house site is the most cost effective alternative.
Site Traditional Home Modular Home
Sears house $555,983 $472,391
Kennel house $603,369 $517,368
These cost estimates do not include the cost of developing a well, which will be required as
neither site has a water source that meets the state standard of 2.5 gallons per minute. Evaluation
of the presence of underground water at either site will determine where to drill a well, develop
water storage, and rebuild agricultural workforce housing. Staff roughly estimates that this effort
will cost an additional $75,000.
Staff recommends the Sears house site for rebuilding agricultural workforce housing (pending
the water assessment) because it is the most cost effective, creates the least conflict with visitors,
and provides the best location for the ranch worker to manage ranching operation. The slight
increase in cost for construction of a modular home at the kennel house location is due to the site
preparation to further setback the residence from the proposed Harrington Creek Trail.
Policy Review
In February 2017, the Board revised the Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition Board
Policy (4.09) to include a provision for new construction (see Attachment 6). The reconstruction
of agricultural workforce housing in lower La Honda Creek OSP will be the first project
evaluated for construction.
San Mateo County Farmworker Housing Pilot Program Phase III
Since entering into a partnership with the County to rehabilitate the Sears house in 2015, the
County Farmworker Housing Pilot Program has gone through two additional phases in which the
eligibility criteria, loan parameters, performance requirements, and project parameters have been
refined (see Attachment 7).
To rebuild agricultural workforce housing at lower La Honda Creek OSP, the District qualifies
for a new construction, no-interest, forgivable 15-year loan of $150,000 as part of the County’s
Farmworker Housing Pilot Program Phase III, with the following key requirements:
R-17-75 Page 4
1. The residence must remain as agricultural workforce housing for the life of the unit.
2. The County will forgive the no-interest loan after fifteen (15) years.
3. The County will require repayment of the loan principal if the residence is used for any
use other than agricultural workforce housing or if the property is sold during the life of
the loan period, unless the San Mateo County Department of Housing approves a specific
exception prior to sale.
4. Provide a deed of trust securing the property.
To obtain this proposed loan, the District would sign a partnership loan agreement with the
County and agree to the key requirements listed above. Additionally, a new amendment to the
grazing lease with AGCO Hay LLC would ensure compliance with the rent requirements by the
grazing tenant.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed project budget includes $739,600 for this Agricultural Workforce Housing Project.
This was a conservative (high) estimate of the budget prior to obtaining refined cost estimates.
A total of $150,000 in loan funding from the County partially offsets the cost. There are
sufficient funds in the FY2017-18 Budget and three year Capital Improvement Plan to cover the
recommended action and expenditures.
FY2017-18 & FY 2018-19
Preferred option
Sears House Site
Alternative
Kennel House Site
Agricultural Workforce Housing (listed as Farm Labor
Housing – La Honda Budget)
$739,600 $739,600
Spent–to-Date (as of 06/28/17): $0 $0
Encumbrances: $0 $0
[Rebuild Ag Workforce Housing – Costs (includes well cost)]: $547,391 $592,368
Less Grant Amount ($150,000) ($150,000)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $342,209 $297,232
This project is not eligible for Measure AA reimbursement.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Commitee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. San Mateo County Supervisor Don
Horsley’s office and the San Mateo County Farm Bureau have been consulted on this project per
the requirements of the District’s Coastal Service Plan.
R-17-75 Page 5
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Rebuilding of agricultural workforce housing at either location, 900 Sears Ranch Road or 1150
Sears Ranch Road, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. As
the District is rebuilding in-place on an already disturbed area, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303
Class 3 exempts construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or
structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the
conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications
are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are
the maximum allowable on any legal parcel.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval, Staff will conduct a water assessment near the Sears house and kennel
house locations to determine the preferred location for rebuilding of agricultural workforce
housing, and notify the Board of the final location for reconstruction.
The General Manager will enter into a partnership agreement for a fifteen-year, forgivable, no-
interest loan with the County of San Mateo as part of their Farmworker Housing Pilot Phase III
Program. Additionally, the General Manager will amend the grazing lease with AGCO Hay
LLC to ensure compliance with rental requirements for the duration of their term.
Attachments
1. Resolution
2. Agricultural Workforce Housing History
3. Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Housing Assessment
4. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Agricultural Workforce Housing – Cost
Estimates
5. Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Housing Map
6. Rebuilding Agricultural Workforce Housing – Factors to Consider
7. Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program Phase III description.
Responsible Department Head:
Brian Malone, Manager Land and Facilities Services
Prepared by:
Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services Department
Graphics prepared by:
Nathan Grieg, GIS Technician
RESOLUTION NO. 15- ____
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING AND SUPPORTING A
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO (COUNTY) UNDER THE
COUNTY’S FARMWORKER HOUSING PILOT PROGRAM PHASE III TO REBUILD
AGRICULTURAL WORKFORCE HOUSING AT LOWER LA HONDA CREEK,
EXECUTE A LOAN AGREEMENT FOR A NO INTEREST FORGIVABLE 15-YEAR
LOAN FOR THE AMOUNT OF $150,0000 TO OFFSET CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND
DESIGNATE THE RESIDENCE AS AGRICULTURAL WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR
ITS LIFETIME (COUNTY OF SAN MATEO – LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as follows:
Section One: The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
does hereby authorize and support a partnership with the County of San Mateo (County) through
the County’s Farmworker Housing Pilot Program Phase III to rebuild and provide an agricultural
workforce housing residence on District Land and to designate that residence as agricultural
workforce housing for its lifetime.
Section Two: The General Manager, President of the Board of Directors, or other
appropriate officer is authorized to execute a loan agreement with the County for a no interest,
forgivable 15-year loan for $150,000.
Section Three: The General Manager or General Manager’s designee is further
authorized to execute any and all other documents necessary or appropriate to complete the
project identified under the County’s Farmworker Housing Pilot Program Phase III.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District on ___________, 2017, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
ATTACHMENT 1
Secretary President
Board of Directors Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the
above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly approved by the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and
called on the above day:
____________________________
District Clerk
Agricultural Workforce Housing – History to date
Lower La Honda Creek OSP
Date Description
May 2014 San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley’s office contacted the District to discuss a new
Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program they were developing with San Mateo
County Department of Housing and Measure A funding.
March
2015
Informational Presentation on San Mateo County’s Agricultural Workforce Housing
Initiative (R-15-48)
June 2015 Approved Partnership with the County of San Mateo to provide habitability improvements
to 900 Sears Ranch Road (Sears house), in the Town of La Honda, as part of the County’s
Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program at La Honda Creek OSP (R-15-88)
August
2015
The rehabilitation project at the Sears house was not able to proceed, as during removal of
exterior siding it was determined there was no foundation and the framing and shear wall
construction would not support lifting the house to install a foundation. The house was
“red tagged” by the County, and the ranch worker and family relocated to the onsite trailer.
The County also required demolition of the structure given its condition.
January
2016
Ranch worker and family moved into the “flagpole” house across from the Event Center as
temporary housing.
June 2016 Met with San Mateo County Planning, Building, Environmental Health, and Fire to discuss
requirements for reconstruction.
June 2016 Revised the project scope of the Agricultural Workforce Housing Project to include an
assessment of the housing options for the Sears Ranch Farm Labor Housing Residence (R-
16-71)
September
2016
Board approval of the removal of debris piles and the demolition of 12 structures in the
former Driscoll Ranch area of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve to prepare the area for
public use. (R-16-112)
September
2016
Housing Assessment for Lower La Honda Creek OSP completed. Update in June 2016 to
include demolished structures (Wool and Sears houses).
October
2016
Award of Contract to complete the Driscoll Ranch Remediation and Demolition Project at
La Honda Creek OSP (R-16-136)
November
2017
Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee met to discuss the proposed new
District Housing Policy
February
2017
Board approval of the new Board Housing Policy as recommended by the Legislative,
Funding and Public Affairs Committee, which supersedes the Board’s 1982 Employee
Residence Policies (R-17-11). It included an agricultural tenant classification.
February
2017
Board approval of revisions to Board Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands and
Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition as recommended by the
Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) (R-17-10). Language added
to evaluate constructing new structures as well as new language defining how agricultural
value affects the disposition of a structure.
May 2016 Prepared preliminary cost estimates to rebuild at either the Sears house location or 1150
Sears Ranch Road (Kennel house) (pending demolition)
June 2017 Board consideration of the proposed demolition of the unoccupied residence at the Kennel
house in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (OSP). (R-17-xx)
ATTACHMENT 2
La Honda Open Space Preserve - Lower La Honda Area Housing Assessment – Attachment 3
House Name/Address Housing Information
1150 Sears Ranch Road
Rental Type Enterprise Rental: 2BR, 1BA
Structure Condition
and
Historic Significance
Very Poor
No foundation, new walls needed, new floors, heating, electrical, plumbing,
windows, and doors.
Ancillary structures deemed unsafe and proposed for demolition in 2016
(with the exception of one storage building)
Historic structures investigation completed in 2016 indicated the house is not of historic significance.
Services & Utilities Adjudicated water source: Point of Diversion (POD) 36 Septic, PG&E (electrical service. only). Propane
County Land Use
designation
Land Zoning: RM (Resource Management)
Wildland Urban Interface: Outside of designated area
Vehicular Access From Sears Ranch Road via unpaved ranch road (rocked and repaired by
District in 2015)
Uses identified in
2012 Master Plan Continue as part of Grazing lease w/Driscoll Ranches LLC
Current status
Proposed for demolition – see Board Report R-17-74
Priority 2 Agricultural Workforce Housing proposed rebuild site (pending well assessment).
Additional Information:
• Originally acquired as part of Driscoll Ranch in 2006. House was occupied at the time and the 2006 Lease Agreement between District and Driscoll Ranches LLC
allowed continued use of house by non-ranch worker tenant.
• POST bought out remaining interest in the lease with Driscoll Ranches LLC in Dec 2012 and District became direct property manager in November 2013.
House Name/Address Housing Information
900 Sears Ranch Road
Rental Type Demolished
Structure Condition
and
Historic Significance
Demolished
Services & Utilities Water source: Adjudicated spring Septic, PG&E (electrical service. only). Propane
County Land Use
designation
Land Zoning: RM (Resource Management)
Wildland Urban Interface: Outside of designated area
Vehicular Access From Sears Ranch Road via unpaved ranch road
(May need assessment and eventual repair)
Uses identified in
2012 Master Plan
Continue as part of grazing lease with Driscoll Ranches LLC for use as
agricultural workforce housing for grazing lessee
Current Status
Demolished as part of 2016 La Honda OSP demolitions
Priority 1 Agricultural Workforce Housing proposed rebuild site (pending well assessment).
Additional Information:
• Acquired as part of Driscoll Ranch purchase in 2006. The 2006 Lease Agreement between District and Driscoll Ranches LLC allowed continued use of house as
ranch worker housing.
• POST bought out remaining interest in the lease with Driscoll Ranches LLC in Dec 2012 and District became direct property manager in November 2013.
• Grazing Lease with Driscoll Ranches LLC terminated in December 2013 and house was included as ranch worker housing in new District grazing lease with AGCO
Hay LLC.
• County required demolition when SM County Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program indicated that the residence foundation was not capable of an
upgrade in 2015.
• Identified as possible candidate for receipt of no interest forgivable loan from County of San Mateo’s Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program Phase III
for $150,000.
House Name/Address Housing Information
Folger Ranch House
5701 La Honda Road
Rental Type Enterprise Rental: 3BR, 2BA
Structure Condition
and
Historic Significance
Good – complete renovation in 2012
Historic structures investigation completed in 2016 indicated the house is not of historic significance.
Services & Utilities Well, Rebuilt Septic (2012), PG&E (electricity only) Propane, and back- up generator
County Land Use
designation
Land Zoning: RM (Resource Management)
Wildland Urban Interface: Outside of designated area
Vehicular Access From La Honda Road via unpaved ranch road (rocked and repaired by District
in 2012)
Uses identified in
2012 Master Plan
MP: Identified as strategic location in Preserve for District employee
housing.
Current Status
Completely renovated by District in 2012
Rented to California Fish & Wildlife Game Warden in 2012 when offering as staff residence received no interest.
Occupied
Game Warden’s presence of high value to District and local community.
Additional Information:
• Acquired as part of Driscoll Ranch in 2006. The 2006 Lease Agreement between District and Driscoll Ranches LLC allowed continued use of house as ranch worker
housing.
• Discontinued as ranch worker housing prior to termination of the lease with Driscoll Ranches LLC. POST bought out remaining interest in the lease with Driscoll
Ranches LLC in Dec 2012.
House Name/Address Housing Information
5711 La Honda Road
Rental Type Employee Housing: 3BR, 1BA
Structure Condition
and
Historic Significance
Fair to Good
Historic structures investigation completed in 2016 indicated the house is not of historic significance.
Services & Utilities Well, Septic, PG&E (electricity only), no Propane
County Land Use
designation
Land Zoning: RM (Resource Management)
Wildland Urban Interface: Outside of designated area
Vehicular Access From La Honda Road by unimproved dirt road.
Uses identified in
2012 Master Plan Property not part of La Honda Creek OSP when Master Plan was adopted.
Current Status
Designated as Employee Housing in 2015 Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) prepared for Apple Orchard and Event Center properties at time of purchase
Residence renovated in January 2016
Occupied as temporary agricultural workforce housing to house AGCO Hay LLC ranch worker.
Additional Information:
• Acquired as part of the Apple Orchard - Event Center purchase in 2015, with residential leaseback agreement by Driscoll Ranches LLC until November 2015.
• Driscoll Ranches LLC tenant vacated residence in December of 2015.
• Continues to be considered viable as potential employee housing overlooking the Event Center property. Proximity to Event Center has high value to District for
monitoring and maintenance of Event Center’s current and future uses.
House Name/Address Housing Information
4150 Sears Ranch Road
Rental Type Employee Housing: 2BR, 2BA (a 1BR, 1BA is located at west end of house –
possible separate rental unit in the future)
Structure Condition
and
Historic Significance
Good
House built in 1972 by landowner at time. Unlikely to have historic value.
Services & Utilities Well, Septic, PG&E electricity and heating, Propane back-up generator
County Land Use
designation
Land Zoning: RM (Resource Management)
Wildland Urban Interface: Outside of designated area
Vehicular Access From Sears Ranch Road.
Improvements to driveway proposed later.
Uses identified in
2012 Master Plan Property not part of La Honda Creek OSP when Master Plan was adopted.
Current Status
Designated as Employee Housing in 2016 PUMP for underlying land purchase
Occupied - portion of house rented to an employee in August 2016
Proximity to Preserve entrance, staging areas, and trails of high value to District as Preserve is open to public access in 2017.
Additional Information:
• Acquired as part of Cunha Trust property purchase in March 2016.
• Portion of house made available for employee rental August 2016.
• West wing of house may be converted into separate 1BR, 1BA rental unit in the future.
House Name/Address Housing Information
Apple Orchard Cabin
(no street address)
Rental Type Unused due to poor condition and poor access: 2BR, 1BA, loft
Structure Condition
and
Historic Significance
Poor
Historic Structures Report completed in 2015 indicated that the structure is not of historic significance
Services & Utilities Spring, Septic, PG&E (electricity only), Wood stove
County Land Use
designation
Land Zoning: RM (Resource Management)
Wildland Urban Interface: Outside of designated area
Vehicular Access Seasonal access via ford over San Gregorio Creek or overland via Apple
Orchard from Sears Ranch Road through wetland area
Uses identified in
2012 Master Plan Property not part of La Honda Creek OSP when Master Plan was adopted.
Current Status Designated for demolition in 2015 Purchase PUMP
Vacant
Additional Information:
• Acquired as part of the Apple Orchard - Event Center purchase in 2015
• Structural Assessment prepared in 2012 identified structural concerns, water damage, mold, plumbing and electrical deficiencies, and safety concerns
• Proposed for demolition but not yet scheduled due to poor access
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Farm Labor Housing
for
Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
May 8, 2017
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 4
AECOM 4Conceptual May 8, 2017
Cost Estimate for Farm Labor Housing
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Overall Summary
SF $/SF TOTAL
B1 Ray's Ranch Site - Traditional 1,200 463.32 555,983
B2 Ray's Ranch Site - Modular 1,200 393.66 472,391
B3 Dog Kennel House - Traditional 1,200 502.81 603,369
B4 Dog Kennel House - Modular 1,200 431.14 517,368
Z30 Escalation To Midpoint Included Above 0.00%-
Alternates SF $/SF TOTAL
C1 Alternate 1: Mains Water Connection - Trench to Existing Well 1200 14.15 16,981
C2 Alternate 2: Provide Standpipe for Fire Truck Connection 1200 1.27 1,524
DR
A
F
T
AECOM 7Conceptual May 8, 2017
Cost Estimate for Farm Labor Housing
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Ray's Ranch Site - Traditional Summary
%$/SF TOTAL
Gross Area:1,200 SF
A10 Foundations 4%19.11 22,938
A20 Basement Construction 1%5.22 6,258
A Substructure 5%24.33 29,196
B10 Superstructure 1%6.64 7,970
B20 Exterior Enclosure 7%31.91 38,298
B30 Roofing 2%8.65 10,379
B Shell 10%47.21 56,647
C10 Interior Construction 4%17.74 21,292
C20 Stairways 0%0.00 0
C30 Interior Finishes 5%22.72 27,267
C Interiors 9%40.47 48,559
D10 Conveying Systems 0%0.00 0
D20 Plumbing Systems 5%25.10 30,121
D30 Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning 3%12.72 15,268
D40 Fire Protection 0%0.08 100
D50 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications 7%31.17 37,400
D Services 15%69.07 82,889
E10 Equipment 0%0.00 0
E20 Furnishings 3%14.09 16,905
E Equipment & Furnishings 3%14.09 16,905
F10 Special Construction 0%0.00 0
F20 Selective Demolition 0%0.00 0
F Special Construction & Demolition 0%0.00 0
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES 0%195.16 234,196
G10 Site Preparation 0%0.42 500
G20 Site Improvements 14%66.59 79,914
G30 Site Mechanical Utilities 12%56.60 67,922
G40 Site Electrical Utilities 2%8.08 9,700
G Building Site work 28%131.70 158,036
TOTAL ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES 71%326.86 392,232
Z10 Contingency 15.00%11%49.03 58,835
Z11 General Conditions 12.00%10%45.11 54,128
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES 91%421.00 505,195
Z21 Office Overhead & Profit 5.00%5%21.05 25,260
Z22 Insurance & Bond 1.50%1%6.63 7,957
Z23 Permits 2.00%2%8.97 10,768
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE ESCALATION 99%457.65 549,180
Z30 Escalation to Midpoint (Sep 2017)1.24%1%5.67 6,803
RECOMMENDED BUDGET 100%463.32 555,983
DR
A
F
T
AECOM 18Conceptual May 8, 2017
Cost Estimate for Farm Labor Housing
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Ray's Ranch Site - Modular Summary
%$/SF TOTAL
Gross Area:1,200 SF
A10 Foundations 2%6.88 8,254
A20 Basement Construction 1%5.22 6,258
A Substructure 3%12.09 14,512
B10 Superstructure 33%130.00 156,000
B20 Exterior Enclosure 0%0.00 0
B30 Roofing 0%0.00 0
B Shell 33%130.00 156,000
C10 Interior Construction 0%0.00 0
C20 Stairways 0%0.00 0
C30 Interior Finishes 0%0.00 0
C Interiors 0%0.00 0
D10 Conveying Systems 0%0.00 0
D20 Plumbing Systems 1%5.13 6,150
D30 Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning 1%2.46 2,950
D40 Fire Protection 0%0.08 100
D50 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications 1%3.27 3,920
D Services 3%10.93 13,120
E10 Equipment 0%0.00 0
E20 Furnishings 2%7.87 9,449
E Equipment & Furnishings 2%7.87 9,449
F10 Special Construction 0%0.00 0
F20 Selective Demolition 0%0.00 0
F Special Construction & Demolition 0%0.00 0
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES 41%160.90 193,082
G10 Site Preparation 0%0.42 500
G20 Site Improvements 17%66.59 79,914
G30 Site Mechanical Utilities 14%56.60 67,922
G40 Site Electrical Utilities 2%8.08 9,700
G Building Site work 33%131.70 158,036
TOTAL ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES 74%292.60 351,118
Z10 Contingency 15.00%11%43.89 52,668
Z11 General Conditions 7.00%6%23.55 28,265
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES 91%360.04 432,051
Z21 Office Overhead & Profit 5.00%5%18.00 21,603
Z22 Insurance & Bond 1.50%1%5.67 6,805
Z23 Permits 2.00%2%7.67 9,209
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE ESCALATION 99%391.39 469,667
Z30 Escalation to Midpoint (Sep 2017)0.58%1%2.27 2,724
RECOMMENDED BUDGET 100%393.66 472,391
DR
A
F
T
AECOM 29Conceptual May 8, 2017
Cost Estimate for Farm Labor Housing
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Dog Kennel House - Traditional Summary
%$/SF TOTAL
Gross Area:1,200 SF
A10 Foundations 4%19.11 22,938
A20 Basement Construction 1%5.22 6,258
A Substructure 5%24,329.91 29,196
B10 Superstructure 1%6.64 7,970
B20 Exterior Enclosure 6%31.91 38,298
B30 Roofing 2%8.65 10,379
B Shell 9%47,205.45 56,647
C10 Interior Construction 4%17.74 21,292
C20 Stairways 0%0.00 0
C30 Interior Finishes 5%22.72 27,267
C Interiors 8%40,465.80 48,559
D10 Conveying Systems 0%0.00 0
D20 Plumbing Systems 5%25.10 30,121
D30 Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning 3%12.72 15,268
D40 Fire Protection 0%0.08 100
D50 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications 6%31.17 37,400
D Services 14%69,074.25 82,889
E10 Equipment 0%0.00 0
E20 Furnishings 3%14.09 16,905
E Equipment & Furnishings 3%14,087.78 16,905
F10 Special Construction 0%0.00 0
F20 Selective Demolition 0%0.00 0
F Special Construction & Demolition 0%0.00 0
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES 0%195.16 234,196
G10 Site Preparation 0%0.42 500
G20 Site Improvements 0%94.45 113,344
G30 Site Mechanical Utilities 0%56.60 67,922
G40 Site Electrical Utilities 0%8.08 9,700
G Building Site work 0%159.56 191,467
TOTAL ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES 71%354.72 425,663
Z10 Contingency 15.00%11%53.21 63,849
Z11 General Conditions 12.00%10%48.95 58,741
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES 91%456,877.75 548,253
Z21 Office Overhead & Profit 5.00%5%22.84 27,413
Z22 Insurance & Bond 1.50%1%7.20 8,635
Z23 Permits 2.00%2%9.74 11,686
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE ESCALATION 99%496,655.82 595,987
Z30 Escalation to Midpoint (Sep 2017)1.24%1%6.15 7,383
RECOMMENDED BUDGET 100%502,807.50 603,369
DR
A
F
T
AECOM 39Conceptual May 8, 2017
Cost Estimate for Farm Labor Housing
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Dog Kennel House - Modular Summary
%$/SF TOTAL
Gross Area:1,200 SF
A10 Foundations 2%6,878.70 8,254
A20 Basement Construction 1%5,215.00 6,258
A Substructure 3%12,093.70 14,512
B10 Superstructure 30%130,000.00 156,000
B20 Exterior Enclosure 0%0.00 0
B30 Roofing 0%0.00 0
B Shell 30%130,000.00 156,000
C10 Interior Construction 0%0.00 0
C20 Stairways 0%0.00 0
C30 Interior Finishes 0%0.00 0
C Interiors 0%0.00 0
D10 Conveying Systems 0%0.00 0
D20 Plumbing Systems 1%5,125.00 6,150
D30 Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning 1%2,458.33 2,950
D40 Fire Protection 0%83.33 100
D50 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications 1%3,266.67 3,920
D Services 3%10,933.33 13,120
E10 Equipment 0%0.00 0
E20 Furnishings 2%7,874.31 9,449
E Equipment & Furnishings 2%7,874.31 9,449
F10 Special Construction 0%0.00 0
F20 Selective Demolition 0%0.00 0
F Special Construction & Demolition 0%0.00 0
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES 37%160.90 193,082
G10 Site Preparation 0%0.42 500
G20 Site Improvements 0%94.45 113,344
G30 Site Mechanical Utilities 0%56.60 67,922
G40 Site Electrical Utilities 0%8.08 9,700
G Building Site work 0%159.56 191,467
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST BEFORE CONTINGENCIES 74%320.46 384,548
Z10 Contingency 15.00%11%48.07 57,682
Z11 General Conditions 7.00%6%25.80 30,956
BUILDING ELEMENTAL COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES 91%394,322.23 473,187
Z21 Office Overhead & Profit 5.00%5%19.72 23,659
Z22 Insurance & Bond 1.50%1%6.21 7,453
Z23 Permits 2.00%2%8.40 10,086
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE ESCALATION 99%428.65 514,385
Z30 Escalation to Midpoint (Sep 2017)0.58%1%2.49 2,983
RECOMMENDED BUDGET 100%431,140.00 517,368
DR
A
F
T
Wool Ranch Wool Ranch HouseHouse
1150 Sears Ranch1150 Sears RanchRoadRoad
900 Sears Ranch900 Sears RanchRoadRoad
5701 La Honda5701 La HondaRoadRoad5711 La Honda5711 La HondaRoadRoad
4150 Sears Ranch4150 Sears RanchRoadRoad
Apple OrchardApple OrchardCabinCabin
UpperTurtle
ReflectionLake
LowerTurtle
La
H
o
n
d
a
C
r
e
e
k
Bogess
Creek Harrin gton Creek
Langley Creek
Woodruff C reek
S a n G r egorio C re e k
£¤84
Sears
Ranch
Road
Woodland
Vista
Laguna
Dr
S c e n i c D r
CAState Rou t e 8 4
Cuest
a
R
e
a
l
Roquena Dr
R
edwoo d D r
P e e k A B o o L n
S
ears
R
anch
Rd
CAStateRoute84
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Housing Locations
May, 2016
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
L
a
_
H
o
n
d
a
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
\
H
o
u
s
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
e
r
y
a
n
0 0.450.225MilesI
(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.
House Location
Other Protected Open Spaceor Park Lands
La Honda CreekOpen Space Preserve
La Honda
ATTACHMENT 5
Factors to Consider - Rebuilding Agricultural Workforce Housing
Sears house or Kennel house locations
Board-Adopted District
Policies
The rebuilding of either residence is consistent with Board Policies, including the recently
revised Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition (4.09)
Compatibility with Open
Space Character of the Site
Both proposed rebuilding sites for agricultural workforce housing are already disturbed
and have been part of past and current ranching operations in the La Honda area. The
Kennel house site alternative is closer to the new Harrington Creek Trail, which may
impact the public’s experience of open space.
Historic and Educational
Value
Not applicable.
Partnership
Opportunities/Cooperation
San Mateo County (County) has collaborated with the District starting in 2015 to improve
agricultural workforce housing at the lower La Honda Creek OSP. The County continues
to work with the District by providing information and ensuring continued funding to
rebuild the Sears house. To offset the cost of rebuilding this residence, the County is
offering a no interest forgivable 15-year loan for $150,000. This loan is available through
the County’s Farmworker Housing Pilot Program Phase III.
Potential Financial Cost,
Including Liability and
Management
Please reference the financial impact section of the Board report.
Proposed and Potential Uses Agricultural workforce Housing – single-family residence. This residence would house
the AGCO Hay LLC ranch worker, and his family as agreed in the Driscoll Ranch grazing
lease.
Agricultural Value See Regional Importance or Value. Additionally, the availability of agricultural
workforce housing for families on the southern San Mateo Coast is essential to maintain
the agricultural viability of the area. Please see the County’s report of on Agricultural
Workforce Needs Assessment (2016).
Regional Importance or
Value
The District’s mission for the Coastal Protection Area includes preserving agricultural
lands, preserving the rural character, and encouraging viable agricultural use of land
resources. For agricultural tenants, housing agricultural workers onsite assists them with
the management of their operation. Rebuilding agricultural workforce housing at lower
La Honda Creek OSP preserves the rural character of the area and allows AGCO Hay
LLC to manage the District’s largest conservation grazing operation.
Strategic Fit Resource management is one of three main strategic objectives of the District. The
Driscoll Ranch grazing lease is the largest conservation grazing operation (3,681 acres)
providing grassland and wildlife preservation as well as reducing fuel loads within the La
Honda community.
Tradeoffs and Impacts on
District Resources
The Farm Labor Housing – La Honda project is part of the FY2017-18 proposed Action
Plan scheduled for design and construction over the next two fiscal years. The value of
onsite presence at the Sears house site is increased due to construction of the Sears Ranch
staging area and the introduction of the public onto the District’s largest conservation
grazing property.
Visitor Experience Rebuilding agricultural workforce housing at the Sears house site will not significantly
impact the visitor experience as it is sufficiently off the Harrington Creek Trail. Should
the Kennel house site be selected, staff proposes to rebuild the residence slightly setback
from the original Kennel house footprint allowing some privacy for the tenant and less
impact for the visitor.
Condition of the Structure Not applicable.
ATTACHMENT 6
Main Office - Department of Housing
264 Harbor Blvd., Building A Belmont, CA 94002-017
Housing Community Development
Tel: (650) 802-5050
Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo
Tel: (650) 802-3300
Board of Supervisors:
Dave Pine
Carole Groom
Don Horsley
Warren Slocum
David Canepa
Director: Kenneth Cole
Department of Housing website: www.smchousing.org E-mail: housing@smchousing.org
FARMWORKER HOUSING
PILOT PROGRAM PHASE III
The County of San Mateo is pleased to announce Phase III of the Farmworker Housing Pilot Program. The Program
will facilitate the creation of new farmworker housing, the rehabilitation or repair of existing farmworker housing,
and the replacement of existing dilapidated mobilehome units.
The intent of the Program is to build partnerships and provide resources to enable farmers and agricultural
landowners to improve housing and expand housing opportunities for the County’s very low-income farmworkers
that are engaged in full-time agricultural work in San Mateo County during the agricultural season. The
beneficiaries of the Program will be the very low-income farmworkers that reside in the new and rehabilitated units.
The Farmworker Housing Pilot Program has two components:
Rebuilding Together Home Repair Services. Rebuilding Together Peninsula’s (RTP) Safe at Home Program
provides free home repair services to low-income, qualified residents in San Mateo County. The County has
provided funding to RTP to pay for up to ten (10) Safe at Home projects each year. Applications should be made
directly to RTP Associate Director Cari Pang Chen at 650-366-6597 or cari@RTpeninsula.org.
Department of Housing Farmworker Housing Pilot Program Loans. The Department of Housing
(“Department”) is also providing loans to qualified applicants for construction of new farmworker housing units or
rehabilitation and replacement of existing farmworker housing units (“project units”). The Department is offering
two loan programs for qualifying projects: (1) a standard loan at a 3% interest rate, and (2) a no-interest forgivable
loan. The eligibility criteria, loan parameters, performance requirements, and project parameters are detailed below.
Eligibility Criteria:
The project units must be located in San Mateo County.
The project units must be rented to farmworkers, or farmworkers and their families, that meet the following
criteria (“Eligible Farmworkers”):
o Very low-income (under 50% of Area Median Income or AMI).
In 2017, 50% AMI for a household of one is $43,050 and for a household of four is
$61,500. The AMI income thresholds may be adjusted over time.
o Employed in full-time agricultural work in San Mateo County during the agricultural season.
Rent and any other housing-related expenses for the project units must remain stable for one year after
occupancy and must not exceed 30% of the farmworker’s gross income for the duration of the loan.
All project units must be used as rental housing for farmworkers for the life of the unit.
Loan Parameters:
A forgivable no-interest loan is available for project units that will be rented to Eligible Farmworkers at
very low rent (e.g. $2.00-$4.00 per day worked).
A standard loan with a 3% interest rate is available for project units that will be rented to Eligible
Farmworkers at higher levels of rent (e.g., more than $4.00 per day worked, but less than 30% of the
farmworker’s gross income).
The applicant is required to contribute 20% of the value of the County loan to the project.
For rehabilitation or replacement units, the maximum loan amount is $100,000 for each unit.
ATTACHMENT 7
For construction of new units, the maximum loan amount is $150,000 for each unit.
Each applicant can apply for a maximum of two units.
All project units must be rented to farmworkers for the life of the unit.
Assuming satisfaction of all Program and contractual conditions, the County will forgive the no-interest
over 10 years ($100,000 loan) or 15 years ($150,000 loan).
Assuming satisfaction of all Program and contractual conditions, the applicant will be required to pay back
the standard loan with a 3% interest rate over 10 years ($100,000 loan) or 15 years ($150,000 loan). Early
payment is prohibited for these loans.
The County will require repayment of the loan principal if the project unit is used for any use other than
Eligible Farmworkers housing or if the property is sold during the life of the loan period, unless a specific
exception is approved by the Department of Housing.
A deed of trust secured by the property will be required.
Performance Requirements:
Rent and any other housing-related expenses for renovation or replacement of currently occupied units may
not increase from the date of the program application to one year after occupancy of the project unit.
Rent and other housing-related expenses for new units must be agreed to with the County prior to execution
of the loan agreement for new units and remain stable from execution of the agreement to one year
following the occupancy date of the new units.
Following the first year of occupancy, rent may be increased by a maximum of 1% per year for the duration
of the loan.
For the duration of the loan, the rent and other housing-related expenses must remain less than 30% of the
farmworker’s gross income.
The Department will monitor compliance with these conditions annually. Participating owners are required
to provide information reasonably requested by the Department to verify compliance.
Project Parameters:
Participation in the Program is subject to availability of funding and execution of a loan agreement with the
County.
All new units constructed and all units rehabilitated or replaced with funding from this Program must be
used for housing Eligible Farmworkers for the duration of the loan, and for farmworker housing for the
lifetime of the unit.
All mobilehome replacements will be with new mobilehome units or new construction.
All projects must comply with any applicable permit requirements.
An interested property owner can initiate consultation with the Department by submitting a letter of interest
or a completed application.
The Department will schedule a pre-application meeting and site visit with the applicant, the Planning and
Building Department, Environmental Health, and Cal Fire upon receipt of a letter of interest or application.
The Department will determine eligibility after receipt of a complete application and completion of the pre-
application meeting and site visit.
The Department will disburse loan funds on a reimbursement basis, up to the maximum amount of the loan,
upon receipt of a satisfactory request for reimbursement. Requests for reimbursement shall include copies
of invoices paid, canceled checks, or other proof that the invoices have been paid. Reimbursement will be
for 80% of the invoiced request, to reflect the 20% match requirement. Reimbursement requests will be
processed within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a satisfactory request.
Terms and conditions may change, please check the Department of Housing website housing.smcgov.org before
applying.
For more information about this program, please contact Ellie Dallman, Office of Supervisor Don Horsley at
650.599.1016 or edallman@smcgov.org or Heather Peters at hpeters@smchouising.org (preferred) or
650.802.5039.
R-17-76
Meeting 17-15
June 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 15
AGENDA ITEM
Amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to include One Proposed
New Trail Loop and New Trail Names for the Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve an amendment to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan to add a
one-mile trail loop;
2. Approve the following trail names: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main ranch road in
lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve; “Folger Ranch Loop Trail” for a new loop trail
off the main ranch road; “Coho Vista Trail” for the existing trail to the vista point in upper La
Honda Creek; and “Cielo Trail” for an existing trail leading to the Redwood Cabin area.
SUMMARY
Phase I implementation of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (OSP) Master Plan includes
opening the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area, establishing the main Driscoll Ranch road in lower
La Honda Creek as a hiking and equestrian trail, and providing permit-only equestrian parking at
the former Event Center. The General Manager recommends adding an additional one-mile
segment of an existing ranch road to the Phase I Trails Plan, to provide a seasonal loop
opportunity, as an amendment to the Master Plan. In preparation for the opening of the Preserve,
the General Manager also recommends new trail names for lower and upper La Honda Creek.
The proposed trail names for lower La Honda Creek are: “Harrington Creek Trail” for the main
ranch road and “Folger Ranch Trail” for the new loop. Both trails will be opened in late 2017.
The proposed trail names for upper La Honda Creek are: “Coho Vista Loop Trail” for an existing
unnamed trail leading to the vista point and “Cielo Trail” for an existing unnamed trail leading to
the Redwood Cabin area. Both trails in upper La Honda Creek are open to the public, but remain
unnamed to date.
DISCUSSION
Phase I Master Plan Implementation
The La Honda Creek OSP Master Plan includes critical stewardship actions to enhance wildlife
habitat and watershed function, balanced with phased public access improvements. Phase I
implementation of Master Plan is substantially complete, and lower La Honda Creek is
scheduled to open to the public in late fall 2017. The Phase I Trails Plan (Attachment 1)
includes the following elements:
R-17-76 Page 2
• Open the new Sears Ranch Road Parking Area to provide 21 regular parking spaces, one
ADA-accessible space, and other standard amenities, including a double vault restroom,
and interpretive, wayfinding, and regulatory signage;
• Open approximately 5 miles of the main ranch road on the former Driscoll Ranch to
hiking and equestrian use;
• Provide permit-only equestrian parking at the former Event Center property on an interim
basis until a site specific plan can be developed for the property;
• Designate the one-mile segment of the main ranch road connecting to the Event Center
for permit-only equestrian use;
• Prohibit off-trail use within the former Driscoll Ranch on an interim basis until Phase II
trails are complete.
Below is a list of projects completed or underway to prepare the lower area of the Preserve for
public use (does not include resource management, lease, or operational tasks):
Project Description Status of Project
Planning and Administrative Tasks
Conduct neighborhood meeting to review the Phase I Trails Plan
and Sears Ranch Road parking area
Complete
Conduct historic resources evaluation of ranch structures Complete
Farm Bureau consultation to review the proposed parking area,
demolitions, conservation grazing signage
Complete
Establish a ranger residence on the former Cunha property Complete
LFPAC review of proposed new trail names Complete
Develop signboard and brochure maps Underway
Capital Improvements
Rock road and install drainage improvements on the main ranch
road in preparation for increased use
Complete
Construct the Sears Ranch Road parking area Contract pending
Widen and pave the Sears Ranch road for improved safety Contract pending
Repair decking and install handrails on the Harrington Creek
Bridge
Underway
Install self-closing pedestrian gates throughout new trail system Underway
Demolish and clean up ranch structures not needed for lease
operation
Complete
Demolish and clean up site of former dog kennel house Contract pending
Minor improvements to the Event Center equestrian permit
parking area
Underway
Install regulatory, educational, and interpretive signage Underway
Install trail directional signage and trail sign markers to clarify
trail routes and assist with wayfinding
Underway
Addition of a One Mile Trail Loop
In addition to the Board-approved implementation actions described above, the General Manager
recommended adding the following trail loop to the Phase I Trails Plan, as an amendment to the
Master Plan:
R-17-76 Page 3
• A one-mile loop trail through the former Folger Ranch area, to be open on a seasonal
basis to hiking and equestrian use only.
In April 2016, the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee considered the proposed
additional one-mile trail loop in the former Folger Ranch area. The new trail loop would follow
the alignment of an existing ranch road and provide an alternate loop route rather than a dead-
end, out-and-back trail experience. This loop, which would be closed during the rainy season due
to locally poorly drained soils and ponding water, is intended to improve the user experience by
providing additional access to the southern area of the Preserve. The loop opportunity will also
encourage compliance by hikers who will not be allowed to hike past the trail-loop junction at
this time. The PNR Committee recommended that the General Manager forward this new trail
loop to the full Board for consideration in April of 2016 (R-16-48).
Proposed New Trail Names
The main ranch road through southern La Honda Creek traverses the Harrington Creek
watershed and crosses the creek approximately 1.7 miles from the Sears Ranch Road Preserve
entrance (Attachment 1). Harrington Creek is an important perennial tributary to San Gregorio
Creek and supports the federally-threatened California red-legged frog and Steelhead salmon. In
light of the District’s goal of reinforcing the value of the public’s local natural resources, and as
confirmed by LFPAC, the General Manager recommends naming the main ranch road
“Harrington Creek Trail”.
The proposed new one-mile loop off the main ranch road provides access to the former Folger
Ranch. The Folger family and other wealthy San Francisco area families were instrumental in
maintaining cattle grazing as an enduring land use on the San Mateo County coast, which the
District continues to support. A knowledge of ranching history on Preserve lands is critical to
understanding the Preserve today. Therefore, as confirmed by LFPAC, the General Manager
recommends designating this loop as the “Folger Ranch Loop Trail”.
In addition to the new trails in lower La Honda Creek, two existing trails in upper La Honda
Creek also would benefit from formalized names. The first trail is a 1.4 mile loop and 0.5 mile
extension connecting the permit-only Allen Road parking lot to the vista point, which provides
sweeping views of the San Gregorio Creek watershed. The District is the largest landowner
within this watershed, protecting 34% of all watershed lands located within La Honda Creek and
El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserves. Further downstream, San Gregorio Creek is
one of the last remaining coastal streams that supports Coho salmon, and the District has
partnered with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to improve instream
habitat for this species. As confirmed by LFPAC, the General Manager therefore recommends
that the loop trail and extension to the vista point be named the “Coho Vista Loop Trail” and
“Coho Vista Trail”, respectively.
Branching off this trail, a second, 1.2-mile trail leads north toward the Redwood Cabin. This
area comprises the former Dyer property, also known as Cielo Ranch. Cielo, the Spanish word
for sky, is presumably a reference to the Skyline area. The General Manager therefore
recommends that this trail leading towards the ridgeline be designated as the “Cielo Trail”. This
name was chosen based on LFPAC’s direction to staff to identify a more straightforward and
understandable name than the originally proposed “Regismontana Trail” (Arctostaphylos
regismontana is the scientific name for King’s Mountain manzanita, a rare plant prevalent along
the trail).
R-17-76 Page 4
Consistency with the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area Service Plan (June, 2003)
The former Driscoll Ranch portion of the Preserve (lower La Honda Creek) is within the
Coastside Protection Area. Therefore, the proposed Phase I Trails Plan incorporates all
applicable Implementation Actions of the Service Plan and the mitigation measures of the San
Mateo County Coastal Annexation Final EIR, including siting and management of trails and
staging areas, consultation with the Farm Bureau and other stakeholders, and construction best
management practices.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Planning and Natural Resources Committee considered the proposed addition of the Folger
Ranch Loop Trail in April 2016 (R-16-48). The Legislative and Public Affairs Committee
considered the proposed new trail names in August 2016 (R-16-110). All other actions
associated with the Phase I Trails Plan were considered and approved by the Board of Directors
as part of the La Honda Creek OSP Master Plan (R-12-83)
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table provides fiscal data related to Measure AA projects in lower La Honda
Creek. Costs associated with the new trail directional signage and signboards are available in the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 Budget. No additional costs are associated with opening the proposed
one-mile loop addition to the public, as the trail already exists. Operational expenditures to
maintain the signs and the one-mile trail loop would be funded by the General Fund.
MAA 007 Portfolio Allocation $14,825,000
Spent to Date (as of 05/15/17): $10,881,852
Encumbrances: $458,289
Fisheries Restoration Apple Orchard (07-003) Remaining Budget: $16,100
La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure (07-005) Remaining Budget: $69,878
Driscoll Ranch Remediation and Demolitions (07-007) Remaining
Budget:
$86,967
Sears Ranch Parking and Trail Connections (07-009) Remaining Budget $244,001
Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade (07-010) Remaining Budget: $22,465
Balance Remaining (Proposed): $3,045,448
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Addition of the one-mile loop trail as an amendment to the La Honda Creek OSP Master Plan is
categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Section 15301
exempts operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of
existing public or private facilities, such as roads and trails, involving negligible or no expansion
of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Although the former
Folger Ranch road was not proposed for public use as part of the Master Plan, the Master Plan
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the potential impact of new public access
trail uses within lower La Honda Creek and determined that all potential impacts would be less
R-17-76 Page 5
than significant. No physical change to the environment will occur beyond what was already
envisioned in the Master Plan, and use of the Preserve would not substantially increase as a
result of designating the existing ranch road as a public access trail. In addition, this use would
be consistent with the Service Plan and the mitigation measures of the San Mateo County
Coastal Annexation Final EIR.
Selection of trail names is not considered a Project as defined by the California Environmental
Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the District will incorporate the new trails names for the Phase I trails
in the new sign orders and revised brochure maps. New signs and signboards will be produced
and installed in preparation for the grand opening of lower La Honda Creek OSP in late 2017.
Moreover, the new loop trail would be added to the trail network and made ready for the grand
opening as well.
Attachment
1. Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Phase I Public Access Trails Map
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Lisa Bankosh, Planner III
M id p en i n sul a R eg i on a l
Op en Sp a ce D i s t ri c t
L a H o n da Cr eek OSP: P ha se 1 Tr ail s
June 2017
Path: G:\Projects\La_Honda_Creek\La_Honda_Creek_Master_Plan\Implementation\Preserve Map\LHC_Phase1_Trails_V2.mxd
Created By: trobinson
0 10.5
MilesI
(MRO S D)
MR O SD P r es er v es
Pr iv ate P r o per ty
While the Dis trict s trive s to u se the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Cl o sed A re a
Oth er P ro t ec ted L an ds La Ho nd a Cr eek OS P
Ray's Peak
Sears Ranch Road
Parking Area
No access or parking
on Hwy 84
!#
!#
!#
L a H o n d a C r e e k
Langley
Creek
San Gregori
o
Creek
W o o d r u f f C r e e k
Harringt
o
n
C
r
eek
E
l
C
o
r
te
d
e
Madera
Creek
L a w r e n c e
Creek
B o g e ss C re ek
Woodhams Creek
Weeks Creek
H a rrin gto n Creek
L A H O N D A C R E E K
O P E N S P A C E
P R E S E R V E
The only vehicle a ccess to northern
La Honda Creek Preserve is
by p ermit on A llen Roa d.
No parking outside of Preser ve gate.
No access from
Skyline Boulevard.
Permit only
equestrian trail.
C L O S E D A R E A
Folger Ranch Loop Trail
is closed seasonally.
L A H O N D A C R E E K
O P E N S P A C E
P R E S E R V E
La
Hond
a
C
reek
San G
re
g
ori o C reek
0 .1
0 .2
0 .2
1 .0
0 .51.1
3 .2
1.3
1.1
1 .1
0.3
0 .5
"Ï
C
o
h
o
V
i
sta
Trail
H a r r i n g t o n C r eek
Tr
a
il
Folger
R
a
nch
L
o
o
p
T
r
a
i
l
H a r r i ngt
o
n
Creek
Tra
i
l
H
a
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Tr
a
i
l
C i e l o
T
r
ail
C ielo
T
r
ail
C o h o V i s t a
L o o p Tr a i l
Ray's Peak
Sears Ranch Road
Parking Area
Former
Event Center
Red Barn
Vista Point
Future New Segment: B ay Area Ridge Trail
(Hiking, E questrian, Bicycling)
Existing Public Trails
(Permit Only, Hiking, Equestrian)
Phase I Trails
(Hiking, E questrian)
Future Hiking and Equestrian Trails!!!!!
Future Multi-Use Trails
(Hiking, E questrian, Bicycling)
!!
!!
Pha se 1 & Future Trails Big TreeWhite
Barn
From:Jennifer Woodworth
Subject:Questions Re: 6/28/17 Agenda
Date:Wednesday, June 28, 2017 12:27:05 PM
Good afternoon all,
Below please find the answers in blue to questions submitted regarding tonight’s agenda items.
Jen
Director Cyr
Claims List: $12,000 for taxonomy?
WAND Taxonomy is a pre-built taxonomy library for SharePoint. The taxonomy library will be used
to "tag" documents as they are loaded to SharePoint so they are more easily found through search
functionality in SharePoint. A day to day example would be if you were on a shopping website like
Amazon and searched for "men's shoes" the taxonomy would categorize the search into smaller
buckets like athletic, dress, hiking, and sizes. As we move District documents into SharePoint we will
want to follow this practice making District documents for accessible.
Director Kishimoto
Item 5: vehicles. Appreciate the thorough review of vehicle fleet purchase and replacement policy.
One question about the $100,000 aerial lift truck. How many hours or days per year would this be
used as an estimate?
The aerial lift truck will be used by both field offices on a shared basis. We estimate that it will be
used on approximately 45 work days per year. This type of equipment is difficult to rent, especially
on a per project basis. The lift truck will also save money on tree contractors by allowing us to
perform more work in house. It will also increase staff safety by reducing the amount of ladder work
required.
Item 10 - eucalyptus. What is plan to replace the trees?
Santa Clara County FireSafe (SCCFS) will be responsible for developing a revegetation plan. While not
necessarily needed for restoration, the City of Palo Alto (City) does require tree replacement through
their tree removal permit process. SCCFS and District staff will discuss the permit requirements with
the City, since they may require tree canopy replacement within a certain number of years – while
in a wildland setting the District prefers to plant acorns instead of using nursery plants. The District
and SCCFS will comply with the revegetation plan that is approved by the City.
Item 15 renaming trails. since the Folger name came up, it reminded me of my Chinese American
historian friend who has done a lot of research on the Chinese American history in this area
including Folger stables: https://chsa.org/event/celebrating-the-walls/. When staff and our
committee review trail and other names, do we consider our Asian and Hispanic heritages too? This
would be a good way to engage new constituencies.
The process for naming trails is outlined in the Board-approved Policy for Site Naming, Gift, and
Special Recognition and guided by standard practice. Per the process, the assigned Planner
coordinates with field staff, who typically are quite familiar with land facts, anecdotal information
about properties, and area history, to suggest names that further the District’s goal of increasing
public awareness of the natural and cultural values associated with the Preserve, property, or
region. In addition, staff also consider the ease of name/word pronunciation and comprehension for
patrol and emergency dispatch purposes. In more recent years, we have included Native American
or prehistoric-era names; for example, the Charquin Trail in Mindego is named after an Ohlone tribal
leader, and the Achistaca Trail in Long Ridge is named after a local Native American tribe.
A recommended list of names is then submitted to the General Manager for review, and final
recommendations are subsequently presented to LFPAC for input and confirmation. Consistent with
the District’s diversity outreach goals, staff will continue to broaden their research to identify names
that connect to a greater diversity of cultures and communities in future trail naming. Thank you for
reinforcing the diversity goals and for your suggestions.
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.