The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20170426 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 17-10 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, April 26, 2017 Special Meeting starts at 5:45 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A 5:45 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant exposure to litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (one potential case) 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Santa Clara County APN: 575-11-008 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi Sr. Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Ronald Kahn, HR2LG, LLC Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms 3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 085-170-020, 290 & 310 Agency Negotiator: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Negotiating Party: Justin Garland, Conservation Project Manager, Peninsula Open Space Trust 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 Meeting 17-10 action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section. ADOPTION OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. 1. Approve April 12, 2017 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Quarter 3 District Budget Amendments (R-17-63) Staff Contact: Stefan Jaskulak General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the proposed FY2016-17 Quarter 3 District Budget Amendments. 4. Contract Amendment with Harris Design for $362,536 for additional scope items including Design, Engineering, Construction Administration, and Permitting for the Combined Webb Creek Culvert and Trail Undercrossing at Alma College Parking Area at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $604,365 (R-17- 52) Staff Contact: Bryan Apple, Planner II General Manager’s Recommendation: Amend a contract with Harris Design for the Alma College Parking Area and Trail Crossing in the amount of $362,536 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $604,365, for the following additional scope items and cost: 1. Design, construction documents (CD), permitting support, and construction administration for the combined Webb Creek Culvert and Trail Undercrossing and Upper Lake Spillway Connection to Webb Creek Culvert in the amount of $219,140. 2. Replenishment of contract funds for an undercrossing feasibility assessment that was completed to better inform the parking area schematic design in the amount of $13,555. 3. Design of a public access area to Upper Lake in the amount of $19,860. 4. An optional task to complete the design, construction documents (CD), and construction administration for the replacement of the lower section of the Webb Creek culvert, if deemed necessary, in the amount of $19,860. 5. A 15% contingency of $76,221 to cover potential unforeseen requirements. 6. A separate contract allowance of $20,000 specifically for additional revisions related to permitting and regulatory requirements, site investigations and additional public meetings that are beyond the current scope of work to avoid implementation delays, for a combined not-to- exceed contract amount of $604,365. 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. 5. Annual Integrated Pest Management Report, 2016 (R-17-50) Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator General Manager’s Recommendation: No Board action required 6. Approval of Rangeland Management Plan for October Farm (R-17-51) Staff Contact: Clayton Koopmann, Resource Management Specialist II 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. Approve the Rangeland Management Plan for the October Farm portion of the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. 3. Adopt an Amendment to the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the October Farm portion of the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to incorporate the Rangeland Management Plan. 7. Review and Reaffirmation of the use of Rights of First Offer and Rights of First Refusal to purchase and preserve open space lands, and authorization of General Manager to initiate negotiations on specific properties (R-17-44) Staff Contact: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager and Elish Ryan, Real Property Planner III General Manager’s Recommendation: Reaffirm interest in outstanding Rights of First Offer and Rights of First Refusal to preserve open space lands, and authorize the General Manager or General Manager’s designee to initiate negotiations upon notification of owners’ intent to sell certain properties. 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 April 21, 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 April 12, 2017 Board Meeting 17-09 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, April 12, 2017 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION President Hassett called the special meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Jed Cyr and Pete Siemens Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, Information Systems and Technology Manager Garrett Dunwoody, GIS Administrator Casey Hiatt, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator Coty Sifuentes-Winter Public comments opened at 5:31 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 5:31 p.m. 1. Overview of District's Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Program (R-17-45) Information Systems and Technology Manager Garrett Dunwoody introduced the District’s use of GIS data and the various forms of data used by GIS staff to create the District’s maps and the information those maps can provide. Director Siemens arrived at 5:43 p.m. GIS Administrator Casey Hiatt described the many uses of GIS by the District, including the Conservation Atlas, GeoPDFs, preserve maps, and patrol map books used by District staff. In Meeting 17-09 Page 2 addition to the various types of preserve maps used by the public and staff. GIS staff also analyzes information to assist staff in answering spatial questions, such as public notifications that are sent to District neighbors prior to Board action related to a preserve. Ms. Hiatt provided an overview of the District’s new GIS Enterprise system, which will assist staff by creating a centralized database of projects throughout the preserves and increase interdepartmental collaboration. Staff on their routine field inspections will be able to input data from the field, including failed culverts, wildlife observations, pre-acquisition scouting for potential property purchases, etc. Mr. Dunwoody described how technology could help support open space by increasing efficiencies in how we allocate resources, monitor protected species, and educate staff on using these resources. Director Riffle inquired how the District works with partners and other agencies to use GIS data. Ms. Hiatt explained the District collects information from other agencies and shares the District’s data. In the future, the goal is to be able to share data in real time. 2. Overview of the partnership with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (R-17-49) Executive Director of the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Kellyx Nelson described the Resource Conservation District (RCD) and its work with landowners to provide technical assistance, conservation planning, education and outreach, etc. The RCD has worked with the District in the past related to water management, and does extensive outreach to promote water quality in rural lands. Additionally, the RCD works to promote climate change mitigation, wildlife efforts to protect threatened and endangered species along the San Mateo Coast, and protection of the agricultural food system. Finally, Ms. Nelson described several projects the RCD and the District partnered to protect natural resources. Director Riffle requested additional information related to the RCD’s funding sources. Ms. Nelson explained a very large majority of the RCD’s funding comes from grants. Director Riffle asked if Ms. Nelson had any suggestions for future collaboration with the RCD. Ms. Nelson commented on the District’s current and proposed future work on permitting issues, climate change mitigation, Cloverdale Ranch, and streamflow. President Hassett adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 6:54 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Hassett called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:00 p.m. Meeting 17-09 Page 3 ROLL CALL Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: Jed Cyr 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 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Harris moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent) CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:01 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 7:01 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, as amended. VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent) 1. Approve March 22, 2017 Minutes Director Kishimoto commented on the information she requested added to the minutes related to her comments on metering water usage at Bear Creek Stables. 2. Claims Report BOARD BUSINESS 3. Report from the Bond Oversight Committee to the Board of Directors for the review period from May 11, 2014 to June 30, 2016 (R-17-53) Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak introduced Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Chair Paul Betlem. Meeting 17-09 Page 4 Mr. Betlem introduced the members of the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC), described the charter of the BOC, and the process they followed to review the Measure AA expenditures, including transaction documents. Mr. Betlem described the findings of the BOC including that all transactions reviewed were in alignment with the Measure AA bond provisions, and MROSD staff members were both responsive to our inquiries and demonstrated complete transparency and integrity. The members of the Board thanked the BOC members for their work and contributions to the BOC. Director Riffle requested additional information regarding the recommended improvements. Chair Betlem explained the District’s previous accounting of labor cost allocations on an annual basis. The BOC felt a quarterly basis would increase the BOC’s understanding of how the labor costs were allocated to projects. General Manager Steve Abbors reported the procedure has now been updated and is helping improve the District’s work. Public comment opened at 7:17 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:17 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to accept the report of the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee. VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent) 4. Restructuring of the Finance Department within Administrative Services Resulting in No Net Increase in Full Time Equivalent Positions, and an associated change to the Classification and Compensation Plan (R-17-52) Mr. Jaskulak described the current structure of the finance department and its vacancies. Mr. Jaskulak proposed restructuring the finance department into its finance and budget functions. Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the proposed structure of the two departments and the fiscal impact of the restructure resulting in a net savings of $68,814. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding how the proposed restructure fits within the recommendations of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model. Mr. Jaskulak explained the proposed restructure does not add any new positions and is expected to lead to a cost savings. Additionally, the new structure will allow for cross training of staff to help fill unexpected vacancies. Mr. Abbors provided additional information regarding FOSM implementation explaining that the Senior Management Analyst that reported to him was working primarily with the Finance Meeting 17-09 Page 5 department. The District will continue to improve on the FOSM as it is tested throughout the District. Public comment opened at 7:38 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:38 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt a resolution amending the District’s Classification and Compensation Plan to create the Budget & Analysis Manager classification at range 48 in the Administrative Services business line, a new position that would be filled in lieu of the vacant Senior Management Analyst position. VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Siemens reported on the April 11, 2017 Real Property Committee meeting. Director Riffle reported on the March 28, 2017 Planning and Natural Resources Committee meeting. B. Staff Reports District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported on two projects recently undertaken to update and increase the efficiency of District internal processes. These were a revamping of the agenda report process and an upcoming review of the District’s records management program. Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse reported on a recent training related to critical incident debriefings for ranger staff to discuss the incident and take time off as necessary. Additionally, labor negotiations with the Field Employees Association will begin early in the next calendar year. Mr. Jaskulak reported the District received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for its FY2016-17 budget document from the Government Finance Officers Association. General Manager Steve Abbors reported on statewide legislation the District has recently taken a position on and sponsored. The District will also be issuing a request for proposals soon for lobbying services. Finally, he will be suggesting a Santa Clara County Leadership Academy team look into options for onsite childcare options. General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner reported the District recently opposed legislation that would limit the amount of indemnity the District could require of consultants for their designs. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Meeting 17-09 Page 6 Director Kishimoto reported she attended meetings of Santa Clara County Local Area Formation Committee and the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Water Commission. Director Harris commented on potential changes in San Mateo County with additional focus on housing and less on parks and open space. President Hassett reported he attended a meeting of the South Skyline Association where General Manager Steve Abbors and Assistant General Manager presented regarding Mt. Umunhum. ADJOURNMENT President Hassett adjourned the meeting into closed session at 8:07 p.m. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9) M. Mahronich, et al v. Presentation Center, Los Gatos, Inc. Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-15-CV-276706 President Hassett adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 8:52 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk page 1 of 5 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-10 DATE 04-26-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74817 10413 - DOWNTOWN FORD Purchase 2017 Ford F350 (M216), Ford F550 Dump Truck (M217)04/19/2017 148,670.77 74844 10925 - PAPE` MACHINERY 2017 John Deere 310 Backhoe - T44 04/19/2017 139,497.01 74842 11716 - O.C. JONES & SONS, INC.Retainage Release into Escrow - Mt Um Road Construction Agreement 04/19/2017 97,631.30 74757 *10720 - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW - REC Deer Hollow Farm Support Agreement FY 2016-2017 04/12/2017 75,000.00 74806 11369 - BANK OF THE WEST COMMERCIAL CARD USA $126.59 Parking Fee & Lunch Mtgs.04/19/2017 56,710.13 $496.78 Locksmith Service, Fuel for Truck $85.21 Fuel for Truck $27.07 Book for Resource Management Specialist I $370.00 Calif. Trails & Greenways Conference Registration $275.00 AEP Conference Registration $1,852.78 Trail Building Conf. Expenses (3 OSTs), Gate Hardware $15.17 Light switches for Hawthorns employee residence $448.00 Fastrak, A103 Vehicle Equipment $1,363.96 Generator Repair Service, Supplies $1,305.64 SFO Tools, Locks, Office Supplies $460.84 Website services, software $297.67 New Batteries for vehicle M27 $296.74 AEP Conf. Hotel, Diversity Training Class $1,104.65 Building Permit for Harrington Bridge Re-Decking -PCR $465.25 Work Boots, Welding Supplies $1,080 Garage Door For Rentals 5750 Alpine Rd - SR/SG $591.42 Digital Scale, Building Supplies $1,129.59 Haz Waste ($779), Facilities maintenance $106.40 Water syster replacement $322.23 Storage boxes for SOST & OST gear $238.44 ATV cover & camera $271.34 Hardware & Office Supplies $1497.40 Trail Building Conference Expenditures (Fickes & Towne) $648.54 Docent -Volunteer meeting/training; facility rental $133.21 Volunteer Supplies/Equipment $37.77 Field Supplies $116.00 MMANC Leadership Summit, Parking $562.56 Field Supplies $1,249.76 Office furniture, Permits, Field supplies, Book $193.03 Field Supplies $744.07 Plotter printing supplies, Forms subscription, parking $3,751.10 AO Internet ($1455), 6 Monitors ($1494), IT Hardware $77.00 CSDA webinar, Parking for BAOSC gathering, Chamber mixer $445.00 Calif. Trails Conference Registration, Dropbox $448.98 LCW Conference Expenditures, GFOA Reference Book $881.24 Stable Building Remodel Materials $1,798.4 - Tool box for vehicle, Trails Conference (3 staff) page 2 of 5 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-10 DATE 04-26-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount $4,909.85 Pick Up Pack Tool Box for A102 $420.07 DHF Filter fabric, Lunch for EMO testing $1,583.73 Rope, Safety Glasses (40 pr.) $2,010.68 Commuter Check Emp. Benefit, NWS Conf. Expenditures $205.85 CAPIO Conference Hotel Reservation $38.55 Items for hygiene kit $2.50 Parking Fees $113.34 Bridge Toll, Skills Test, Supplies $910.04 Office Supplies $133.69 Vol. Prog. Lead Hiring Panel Lunch $925.26 FFO Dishwasher ($784), Leather oil $1,255.84 Recruitment advertising $354.25 Work Boots $336.02 Tools, field supplies, consumables $55.34 Items for Powder River gate $508.61 Equipment Maint. ($417), hardware, Academy recruit meal $15.45 Part for gas tank $2,043.72 Ergo Items, CPR items, OSHA Training and travel $117.36 Wasp Traps (qty 24) $1,405.46 CSDA Registration & Expenditures, Food for Board mtgs $893.65 PRAC Conference expenses & field gear $292.16 GPS Receiver, FFO Internet Service, Bluetooth Speaker $314.99 ICMA West Coast Summit, Car Wash $161.45 Trails Conference expenditures $374.12 recruitment panels (3) snacks/lunch $104.94 Building Materials $1,396.08 CPRS conference, storage,training $70.25 Five Books for Spaces & Species field trips $9,900 UC Berkeley Executive Leadership Program $550.00 Natural Capital Symposium 74765 10413 - DOWNTOWN FORD Ford F350 Patrol Truck - P112 04/12/2017 50,374.13 74785 10094 - RESTORATION DESIGN GROUP, INC.Mount Um Summit Area Construction Management 04/12/2017 47,681.40 74810 *10161 - CalPERS FISCAL SERVICES DIVISION - DB CalPERS Pension Plan Unfunded Accrued Liability April 2017 04/19/2017 45,626.91 74822 11609 - GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.Server Systems Testing, Decomissioning, QA, and Control 04/19/2017 20,700.00 74823 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY Hendry's Creek Restoration Project - FY 16-17 04/19/2017 19,188.55 74807 10684 - BUTANO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Mt Um Road Geotechnical Consultant 2016 04/19/2017 17,770.00 74816 10463 - DELL BUSINESS CREDIT Dell Computer Purchases for 04/17 04/19/2017 13,779.13 74795 *10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 04/12/2017 11,663.11 74783 11293 - RANDAZZO ENTERPRISES, INC Driscoll Demolition Retainage Release - LHC 04/12/2017 11,446.10 74756 10723 - CALLANDER ASSOCIATES Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design Consultant 04/12/2017 10,874.27 74866 11651 - STRATEGIC PRODUCTS & SERVICES, LLC Sharepoint Implementation Consultant 04/19/2017 7,775.00 74781 11523 - PGA DESIGN, INC.Alma College Site Rehabilitation Planning 04/12/2017 7,605.00 74864 10585 - SOL'S MOBILE AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR, INC.5000 Mile Service (8 vehicles), Brake Repairs (4 vehicles)04/19/2017 7,037.48 page 3 of 5 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-10 DATE 04-26-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74832 *10419 - LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Monthly Employee Life, AD&D, LTD Insurance 04/19/2017 6,680.76 74847 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.Repair And Maintenance - (3 vehicles) BIT Inspection (5 vehicles)04/19/2017 6,425.17 74773 11728 - KIDDER MATHEWS OF CALIFORNIA, INC Zion Property appraisal - MR 04/12/2017 6,066.67 74837 10512 - MARK THOMAS & COMPANY INC Record of survey for POST (Apple Orchard / Event Center)04/19/2017 5,605.00 74826 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC Excavator Rental for Mt Thayer 04/19/2017 5,160.19 74870 11021 - TRAIL SERVICES LLC High Line and rock work Training for L&F crews 04/19/2017 4,337.50 74868 10112 - TIMOTHY C. BEST Hendry's and Purisima Creeks - Design/Implementation/Consulting 04/19/2017 3,905.00 74835 10135 - MADCO Miller BlueStar Welder & Supplies for EMO Truck 04/19/2017 3,803.01 74798 *11118 - WEX BANK Fuel for District vehicles 04/12/2017 3,625.47 74789 11651 - STRATEGIC PRODUCTS & SERVICES, LLC Sharepoint Implementation consultant 04/12/2017 3,575.00 74855 11552 - ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY Labor invoice for week-end 03/24/2107 - Baldwin, Johnny 04/19/2017 3,246.75 74836 10062 - MARK HYLKEMA Historic Properties Survey - Hendrys Creek Restoration 04/19/2017 2,688.00 74797 11388 - WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Water Rights Reporting - Districtwide 04/12/2017 2,492.50 74845 10082 - PATSONS MEDIA GROUP Printing of Regional Maps: GIS/V.S 04/19/2017 2,371.45 74833 11664 - LSQ FUNDING GROUP LC Temporary Staff - Week ending 03/26/2017 04/19/2017 2,202.00 74867 10152 - TADCO SUPPLY Janitorial Supplies (RSA&CP)04/19/2017 2,101.03 74871 *10786 - U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE Sharp Copier lease for all offices 04/19/2017 2,045.32 74808 10840 - CALIFORNIA PENSION GROUP, LLC Consulting Services for February & March 2016 04/19/2017 2,000.00 74858 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT Certificate of compliance application-Giusti lot line adjustment 04/19/2017 1,871.10 74752 *10128 - AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION Repeater Site Lease - Coyote Peak 04/12/2017 1,804.00 74818 10524 - ERGO WORKS 2 Ergonomic Chairs, Keyboard Tray, Monitor Arm Delivery and Installation 04/19/2017 1,790.86 74869 10146 - TIRES ON THE GO Tire Replacement (3 vehicles), Tire Repair (3 vehicles)04/19/2017 1,788.82 74849 *10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS LLC Tower rental - Crown site id 871823 04/19/2017 1,764.22 74874 11190 - VALLEY TREE CARE Tree Pruning (RSACP)04/19/2017 1,750.00 74786 11075 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY - DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Environmental Health Permit 04/12/2017 1,660.00 74846 11144 - PENINSULA MOTOR SPORTS Kawasaki Mule, Rokon, and ATV Parts & Service 04/19/2017 1,659.39 74802 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE MB-Norhtridge Lot restroom pumping, Septic Service (SA-MT UM)04/19/2017 1,650.00 74791 10107 - SUNNYVALE FORD P97 Repair, P99 Repair 04/12/2017 1,606.19 74766 10524 - ERGO WORKS Ergonomic Keyboard, New electric base & installation in existing worksurface 04/12/2017 1,526.24 74767 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Protective Gear, Hardware, Nuts & Bolts 04/12/2017 1,486.85 74819 10567 - EXAMINETICS INC OSHA hearing tests 04/19/2017 1,440.00 74876 11176 - ZORO TOOLS Shelving for Ranger area, Tools for new trucks 04/19/2017 1,384.70 74827 10452 - IFLAND SURVEY Lot Line Adjustment - Purisima Farm Uplands - PCR 04/19/2017 1,240.00 74813 *10445 - COMMUNICATION & CONTROL INC Repeater Site Lease 04/19/2017 1,172.00 74812 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC A91, A98, P92 Vehicle Service And Repair 04/19/2017 1,170.28 74862 11771 - SILICON VALLEY BUILDING INSPECTIONS Building inspection at 240 Cristich Lane, Campbell 04/19/2017 1,100.00 74778 10082 - PATSONS MEDIA GROUP Printing of Logo & fact sheet posters, Letterhead, Board notification postcards 04/12/2017 1,082.61 74792 11055 - SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY Background Check - Ranger Candidate 04/12/2017 1,039.76 74804 11722 - ADLER TANK RENTALS LLC Mt Um Water Tank Rental 3/01/17-3/31/17 04/19/2017 1,009.05 74838 10774 - MICHAEL DEMPSEY, PATRICK DEMPSEY 2 Water Deliveries - SG 04/19/2017 1,000.00 74790 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Body Armor 04/12/2017 923.29 74854 11765 - ROBERT HALF LEGAL Temporary Legal Office Help - wk ending 3/24/17 04/19/2017 880.60 74753 *10294 - AMERIGAS-SAN JOSE ECDM- PROPANE 04/12/2017 851.11 page 4 of 5 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-10 DATE 04-26-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74828 11106 - INTELLI-TECH Server Room Fire Suppression System Preventative Maintenance 04/19/2017 759.27 74824 *11551 - GREEN TEAM OF SAN JOSE Garbage Service (RSA), (SAO)04/19/2017 738.47 74856 *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (RSACP)04/19/2017 713.01 74751 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Septic Service (RSA & DHF)04/12/2017 700.00 74825 *10173 - GREEN WASTE SFO Debris Box, garbage / recycle 04/19/2017 690.50 74814 11013 - CONFIDENCE UST SERVICES INC SFO gas pump repairs 04/19/2017 645.84 74811 10170 - CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY Fire Gear for Ranger Alysha 04/19/2017 621.68 74794 11769 - TOWNE, STEPHANIE Prof. Trailbuilders Conf., State Parks trail class expense reimbursement 04/12/2017 619.00 74770 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Chain saw safety equipment 04/12/2017 589.53 74861 10102 - SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Muzzi legal retainer agreement 04/19/2017 555.00 74865 10683 - STERZL, OWEN Tuition Reimbursement Intro to Information Systems 04/19/2017 499.51 74875 11656 - WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.Mt Um Construction Trailer Rental 3/30/17-4/29/17 04/19/2017 477.46 74761 11628 - CONFLUENCE Writing Mt. Um press Release 04/12/2017 450.00 74777 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Install radio for A103 04/12/2017 444.44 74800 10237 - WILLIAMS, MICHAEL Mileage, Cell Phone Reimbursement for January, February, and March 04/12/2017 439.29 74809 *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service (FFO)04/19/2017 414.73 74873 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services - HR 04/19/2017 382.00 74830 10056 - LANCE BAYER Legal Update Training for Ranger Staff 04/19/2017 375.00 74774 10331 - LE'S ALTERATIONS Sew Cloth Badge Patches on Outerwear 04/12/2017 372.00 74787 11042 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY-OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Livescan Services - February 2017 04/12/2017 362.00 74857 11059 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH DEPT Tick and Water Testing 04/19/2017 356.00 74775 10189 - LIFE ASSIST First Aid Supplies 04/12/2017 353.07 74843 *10080 - PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION HR Medical Exams 04/19/2017 327.00 74853 10093 - RENE HARDOY 03/17 Gardening Services 04/19/2017 325.00 74768 11544 - FICKES, CODY Prof. Trailbuilders Assn. Conference expense reimbursement 04/12/2017 324.00 74771 10731 - HEALEY, FRANK State Parks Trail Construction Class Meals reimbursement 04/12/2017 295.00 74848 *10180 - PG & E Electric Service (SA-MT UM)04/19/2017 282.21 74763 10185 - COSTCO 6 Keyboard/Mouse Devices - IT Hardware 04/12/2017 265.43 74762 10184 - CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE BAR Subscription updates - Practice Under Ceqa 2n Ed Upp 17 04/12/2017 263.67 74788 10349 - SHELTON ROOFING COMPANY INC Roof Repair - ECM 04/12/2017 250.00 74799 10069 - WILFRED JARVIS INSTITUTE Professional Services -Leadership/Organizational Effectiveness 04/12/2017 250.00 74784 *11526 - REPUBLIC SERVICES Monthly garbage services - ECM 04/12/2017 243.51 74863 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Chlorination Of Water Wells - PCR 04/19/2017 225.00 74764 10348 - COSTCO MEMBERSHIP Annual Membership May 2017-April 2018 04/12/2017 220.00 74772 10421 - ID PLUS INC Employee Name Tags 04/12/2017 220.00 74829 11070 - JENKINS, WARREN Tuition Reimbursement - Auto Chassis, Green Builiding 04/19/2017 204.33 74831 11326 - LEXISNEXIS Legal subscriptions 04/19/2017 198.00 74852 10195 - REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE CO INC Trailer Tires T30 04/19/2017 188.14 74801 10810 - A T & T Telephone Connection and 1st month service - WH 04/19/2017 188.00 74779 10209 - PETTY CASH-MROSD Petty Cash reimbursement - FFO 04/12/2017 178.70 74769 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)04/12/2017 173.63 74850 *10261 - PROTECTION ONE AO ALARM SERVICES 04/19/2017 164.85 74803 10240 - ACE FIRE EQUIPMENT & SERVICE INC 3 Fire extinguishers 04/19/2017 145.18 page 5 of 5 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-10 DATE 04-26-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74834 10260 - LUND PEARSON MCLAUGHLIN Fire Sprinkler Inspection - AO 04/19/2017 140.00 74860 10993 - SCHAFFNER, SHERYL Mileage Reimbursement - meeting in Sacramento 04/19/2017 131.61 74840 *10664 - MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS AO garbage services 04/19/2017 126.90 74754 11322 - AMERMEX CONSTRUCTION, INC.Replace Lights - AO 04/12/2017 120.00 74759 *11530 - COASTSIDE.NET SFO Internet Monthly Service 04/12/2017 109.00 74760 **10850 - COMPLETE PEST CONTROL Hawthorne Rodent Control Service - WH 04/12/2017 100.00 74796 11406 - VILLEGAS, JENNY CA Parks & Rec Society Conf. Expense reimbursement 04/12/2017 97.35 74758 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Vehicle Service - P106 04/12/2017 88.18 74839 10255 - MILLER, KEN Reimbursement for EMT Training 04/19/2017 87.00 74776 11449 - MARK, JANE Work Boots for field visits 04/12/2017 83.94 74782 *10261 - PROTECTION ONE AO ALARM SERVICES 04/12/2017 82.73 74793 10162 - TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER AO PEST CONTROL 04/12/2017 80.00 74872 10165 - UPS Return Shipping Fee (SA)04/19/2017 75.29 74755 *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 MONTHLY WATER - WH 04/12/2017 55.59 74841 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS P99 Vehicle Parts (tail lights)04/19/2017 52.69 74820 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Nuts and Bolts for stock 04/19/2017 43.65 74815 11210 - DATA SAFE AO Shredding Services 04/19/2017 40.00 74859 11117 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY/CITIES MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION SCCCMA Meeting Lunch (Woodhouse)04/19/2017 40.00 74805 *10120 - ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC Alarm Service (FFO)04/19/2017 39.99 74821 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Keys 04/19/2017 32.55 74851 *10134 - RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP)04/19/2017 27.25 74780 *10180 - PG & E Monthly Electricity Service - WH 04/12/2017 21.44 GRAND TOTAL 910,176.79$ *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-17-63 Meeting 17-10 April 26, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Fiscal Year 2016-17 Quarter 3 District Budget Amendments GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the proposed FY2016-17 Quarter 3 District Budget Amendments. SUMMARY This report presents the Quarter 3 proposed budget amendments by fund. Requests for budget amendments decreasing capital improvement funds that are also budgeted for the next Fiscal Year 2017-18 (FY2017-18) are included in this Budget Amendment. The operating funds remain unchanged for the Fiscal Year 2016-17 (FY2016-17) Budget as amended. DISCUSSION The Board of Directors (Board) adopted the FY2016-17 Budget and Action Plan totaling $58.1 million at the June 22, 2016 regular meeting (Report R-16-71). As of March 31, 2017, the Board had authorized budget amendments increasing the adopted budget by $9,101,214 to cover personnel services, unanticipated services and supplies expenses, as well as unanticipated capital improvement project costs, and new land purchases. The proposed Quarter 3 budget amendments will result in a reduction of $8,498,100 to the FY2016-17 budget as amended. Requests for budget decreases in Quarter 3 are for the capital expenditures in the following funds: Hawthorn (Fund 20), Measure AA (Fund 30), and General Fund (Fund 40). The operating funds remain unchanged: General Fund (Fund 10), Hawthorn (Fund 20), and Debt Service (Fund 50). Prior to the end of this fiscal year, we anticipate proposing a lump sum payment to CalPERS towards the unfunded pension liability, similar to the payment in June 2016. Additional savings for FY2017-18 may be proposed to add to the Infrastructure Reserve Fund (for the administrative office and field facilities) after the proposed lump sum payment to CalPERS has been made and after the year-end closing of the District’s accounts. R-17-63 Page 2 Table 1A lists the Board authorized budget amendments through March 31, 2017. Table 1A: Year-to-Date Board Approved Budget Amendments Under the General Manager’s authority, net-zero transfers/budget amendments were approved to cover unanticipated capital improvement project costs. These budget amendments are listed below in Table 1B. Table 1B: Year-to-Date Administratively Approved Budget Amendments Budget Amendment Description Board Approved Amendments Budget Amendment Amended Budget Mt. Umunhum Road Rehabilitation (MAA 23-006) $6,331,072 ($79,000) $6,252,072 Mt. Umunhum Summit Restoration (MAA 23-004) $8,889,700 $69,000 $8,949,700 Mt. Umunhum Trail & Bridge (MAA 23-002) $0 $10,000 $10,000 Bear Creek Redwoods Phase I Public Access (MAA 21-005) $0 ($133,000) $696,200 Bear Creek Redwoods Webb Creek Bridge (MAA 21-009) $0 $133,000 $133,000 Administrative Amendment Subtotal $0 Proposed Quarter 3 Amendments to the FY2016-17 Budget The proposed Quarter 3 budget amendments result in a decrease of the District’s FY2016-17 Budget to $58,721,154 due to capital projects being extended or deferred into the next fiscal year. Table 2 summarizes the FY2016-17 adopted budget, YTD approved budget amendments, and proposed Quarter 3 budget amendments by Department. Budget Amendment Description Adopted Budget Budget Amendment Amended Budget Mt. Umunhum Summit Restoration (MAA 23-004)$5,423,250 $3,466,450 $8,889,700 Mt. Umunhum Road Rehabilitation (MAA 23-006)$3,566,400 $2,764,672 $6,331,072 Red Barn Public Access Area (MAA 05-005)$165,000 $60,000 $225,000 Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade (MAA 07-010)$265,000 $207,150 $472,150 Rosetta Property Purchase $0 $1,650,000 $1,650,000 BCR Invasive Weed Management (MAA 21-007)$91,880 $37,000 $128,880 Navid Exchange $0 $39,000 $39,000 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments $876,942 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments $0 Board-Approved Amendment Subtotal $9,101,214 R-17-63 Page 3 Table 2: Summary of FY2016-17 Budget by Department Operating Budget No adjustments to the operating budgets (Funds 10, 20, and 50) are requested. Capital Budget Hawthorns Fund Capital Budget The Hawthorn fund (Fund 20) capital budget is proposed to decrease by $65,500 due to delays with negotiating and executing the one-year license agreement with the potential partner and subsequent delays with the potential partner’s submittal of a formal proposal for the rehabilitation and reuse of the Hawthorns main residence and carriage house (garage). The remaining stabilization work on these structures remain on hold as the District continues to work with the potential partner to present to the Board the long-term partnership terms for management of the historic complex. General Fund Capital Budget The general fund (Fund 40) capital budget is proposed to decrease by $1,188,000. This decrease in mainly due to the deferral of several significant projects in the Land and Facilities Services Department. The Board deferred the farm labor housing project at La Honda Creek Preserve until a Board determination is made on the decision to pursue farm labor housing, and several other projects were deferred until staffing was hired to manage the projects. These projects include El Sereno residence rebuild or demolition, Fremont Older residential water system repairs, La Honda Creek preserve point of diversion 17 water line replacement, and water and driveway improvements at 4150 Sears Ranch Road. Big Dipper livestock fencing was added to this budget because it was not completed in the prior fiscal year. There were also significant savings from a good value construction bid for the Fremont Older parking lot netting structure project, and deferral of Meyer residence remodel project and Harrington Creek bridge re- decking project. The deferrals were due to staffing shortage, but are slated to be completed in the next fiscal year. The Hendry’s Creek Land Restoration project has experienced additional permitting coordination and reviews by the resource agencies, where the District had anticipated bidding and award of construction in Q3 and completing the first half of the stream channel restoration in Q4. FY2017 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget Amendments Amended Budget (as of 03/31/2017) Quarter 3 Proposed Budget Amendments FY2017 Proposed Amended Budget Administrative Services $16,275,246 $16,275,246 $0 $16,275,246 Engineering & Constructio $12,715,769 $6,438,272 $19,154,041 ($6,731,000)$12,423,041 General Counsel $573,071 $573,071 $0 $573,071 General Manager's Office $1,902,242 $1,902,242 $0 $1,902,242 Land & Facilities $10,933,161 $178,590 $11,111,751 ($962,000)$10,149,751 Natural Resources $3,465,029 ($225,956)$3,239,073 ($167,000)$3,072,073 Planning $3,608,172 $168,000 $3,776,172 ($638,100)$3,138,072 Public Affairs $1,763,266 $1,763,266 $0 $1,763,266 Real Property $1,790,866 $2,389,000 $4,179,866 $0 $4,179,866 Visitor Services $5,091,219 $153,308 $5,244,527 $0 $5,244,527 Total $58,118,040 $9,101,214 $67,219,254 ($8,498,100)$58,721,154 R-17-63 Page 4 However, due to the additional permitting consultations and reviews, construction will not start until 2018. Measure AA Capital Budget The Measure AA (Fund 30) capital budget is proposed to decrease by $7,244,600. The projects that are included in the budget reduction are deferred to the next fiscal year and are included in the proposed budget for Fiscal Year FY2017-18. The deferrals are mainly due to weather delays in the case of MAA 23-004 Mount Umunhum Summit and MAA 23-006 Mount Umunhum Road projects, and permitting delays, staffing shortage, or unanticipated conditions for the remainder of the projects listed below. FISCAL IMPACT Board approval of the FY2016-17 proposed budget amendments will result in a decrease of the District’s FY2016-17 Budget to $58,721,154 due to capital projects extending or deferring into the next fiscal year. These expenses are also included in the proposed FY2017-18 budget and implementing the reductions for the Quarter 3 reforecast will ensure the expenses are not double budgeted. Measure AA Deferrals MAA 03-004 Harkins Bridge (310,000) MAA 04-004 Oljon Trail (400,000) MAA 05-002 Upper La Honda Grazing (64,000) MAA 07-005 La Honda Driscoll Infrastructure (16,000) MAA 07-009 Sears Ranch Parking (150,000) MAA 09-001 Russian Ridge Grazing Infrastructure (170,000) MAA 17-002 Lysons Demolition (230,000) MAA 20-001 Highway 17 (82,000) MAA 21-003 BCR Water Infrastructure (370,000) MAA 21-005 BCR Cultural resources (37,000) MAA 21-006 Alma College Site Plan/Rehab (336,000) MAA 22-001 Hendry's Creek Restoration (37,200) MAA 23-004 Mount Umunhum Summit (2,476,400) MAA 23-006 Mount Umunhum Road (2,566,000) (7,244,600) FY2016-17 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget Amendments Amended Budget (as of 03/31/2017) Quarter 3 Proposed Budget Amendments FY2016-17 Proposed Amended Budget $27,209,300 $187,834 $27,397,134 $27,397,134 Hawthorns (Fund 20)$133,050 $0 $133,050 ($65,500)$67,550 $15,674,800 $7,303,380 $22,978,180 ($7,244,600)$15,733,580 $4,016,050 $1,610,000 $5,626,050 ($1,188,000)$4,438,050 Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$11,084,840 $0 $11,084,840 $0 $11,084,840 TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET $58,118,040 $9,101,214 $67,219,254 ($8,498,100)$58,721,154 General Fund Operating (Fund 10) General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40) DISTRICT BUDGET BY FUNDING SOURCE Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30) R-17-63 Page 5 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Upon Board approval, staff will make the necessary Budget amendments. Responsible Department Head: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer Prepared by: Andrew Taylor, Senior Accountant Resolutions/2017/17-__FY16-17 Q3 Budget Adjustments 1 RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 WHEREAS, on June 22, 2016 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District adopted the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget and Action Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2016 and on January 25, 2017 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District amended the FY2016-17 Budget; and WHEREAS, the General Manager recommends amending the FY 2016-17 Budget to reflect requests for budget decreases for capital improvements; 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 FY2016-17 Budget for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as follows: SECTION TWO. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance with said budget by fund. SECTION THREE. Except as herein modified, the FY 2016-17 Budget and Action Plan, Resolution No. 16-25 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: FY2016-17 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget Amendments Amended Budget (as of 03/31/2017) Quarter 3 Proposed Budget Amendments FY2016-17 Proposed Amended Budget $27,209,300 $187,834 $27,397,134 $27,397,134 Hawthorns (Fund 20)$133,050 $0 $133,050 ($65,500)$67,550 $15,674,800 $7,303,380 $22,978,180 ($7,244,600)$15,733,580 $4,016,050 $1,610,000 $5,626,050 ($1,188,000)$4,438,050 Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$11,084,840 $0 $11,084,840 $0 $11,084,840 TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET $58,118,040 $9,101,214 $67,219,254 ($8,498,100)$58,721,154 General Fund Operating (Fund 10) General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40) DISTRICT BUDGET BY FUNDING SOURCE Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30) ATTACHMENT 1 ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: General Counsel I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above day. District Clerk R-17-52 Meeting 17-10 April 26, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Contract Amendment with Harris Design for $362,536 for additional scope items including Design, Engineering, Construction Administration, and Permitting for the Combined Webb Creek Culvert and Trail Undercrossing at Alma College Parking Area at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $604,365. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS Amend a contract with Harris Design for the Alma College Parking Area and Trail Crossing in the amount of $362,536 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $604,365, for the following additional scope items and cost: 1. Design, construction documents (CD), permitting support, and construction administration for the combined Webb Creek Culvert and Trail Undercrossing and Upper Lake Spillway Connection to Webb Creek Culvert in the amount of $219,140. 2. Replenishment of contract funds for an undercrossing feasibility assessment that was completed to better inform the parking area schematic design in the amount of $13,555. 3. Design of a public access area to Upper Lake in the amount of $19,860. 4. An optional task to complete the design, construction documents (CD), and construction administration for the replacement of the lower section of the Webb Creek culvert, if deemed necessary, in the amount of $19,860. 5. A 15% contingency of $76,221 to cover potential unforeseen requirements. 6. A separate contract allowance of $20,000 specifically for additional revisions related to permitting and regulatory requirements, site investigations and additional public meetings that are beyond the current scope of work to avoid implementation delays, for a combined not-to-exceed contract amount of $604,365. SUMMARY To facilitate the opening of Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve in late 2018, the design of the Alma College Parking Area includes an at-grade trail crossing (crosswalk) on Bear Creek Road as part of Phase I public access improvements in the Board-approved Preserve Plan. In order to separate trail users from Bear Creek Road for a safer path of travel, an undercrossing is planned as part of Phase II improvements. The General Manager recommends amending the Harris Design contract at this time to integrate the Phase II undercrossing into the design and engineering of the adjacent new parking area so as to avoid potential constructability issues and added costs once the parking area is constructed. Sufficient funds for work completed through R-17-52 Page 2 end of June are included in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget. Funds for work completed in subsequent budget cycles will be included as part of the three-year Capital Improvement Program, which the Board will review and consider in May 2017. This contract amendment does not include costs associated with the actual construction of either the Alma College Parking Area or the combined Webb Creek Culvert and Undercrossing. DISCUSSION In May 2016, the Board of Directors awarded a contract to Harris Design, Inc., for design, engineering, permitting assistance, and construction administration services for the Alma College Parking Area in the amount of $241,829 (R-16-49). The original project scope included a new parking area, an at-grade trail crossing of Bear Creek Road, a vault restroom, signage, and other site furnishings consistent with District standards (Attachments 1, 2). The design contract also included repair/replacement recommendations for the degraded Webb Creek culvert, which passes under Bear Creek Road and the majority of the project site. In January 2017, the Board approved the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan, including the proposed public access phasing, which sets the public opening of the west side of the Preserve for late 2018 (R-17-01). Included in the Preserve Plan is a later phase (Phase II) undercrossing of Bear Creek Road to provide an improved and safer crossing of the roadway for Preserve users (Attachment 3). A contract amendment is recommended at this time to complete and integrate the design and engineering of the undercrossing into the parking lot design plans to avoid constructability issues and potential added costs in the future. The recommended contract amendment includes other elements to address drainage issues and enhance visitor amenities at this site, as well as funds to address potential issues that may arise to keep the project moving and on schedule. More specifically, the contract amendment includes the following: 1. Design and engineering of the trail undercrossing and a spillway connection from Upper Lake to Webb Creek; 2. Replenishment of parking area design funds, which were used to conduct a feasibility assessment of the undercrossing; 3. Design of a new public access area to the edge of Upper Lake; 4. An optional task to incorporate the replacement of the Webb Creek culvert into the parking area construction documents, if deemed necessary; 5. A 15% contingency to cover unanticipated issues; and 6. A $20,000 allowance for revisions to design documents resulting from the permitting process with the regulatory agencies. A breakdown of costs for each item is provided below. Additional details about each task are provided in Attachment 4. Recommended Contract Amendment – Additional Tasks Amount 1. Trail Undercrossing Design and Upper Lake Spillway Connection $219,140 2. Replenishment of Contract Funds Set Aside for Later Phases of Work $13,555 3. Upper Lake Access Design $19,860 4. Webb Creek Culvert Replacement (Optional Task) $13,760 5. 15% Design Contingency $76,221 6. Permitting Allowance $20,000 Total $362,536 R-17-52 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT This project is part of Measure AA Expenditure Plan Portfolio #21, Bear Creek Redwoods Public Recreation and Interpretation Projects, which specifies, in part: Open for hiking, equestrian activities. Provide parking areas, trails, and is identified as MAA Project #21-5 Phase I Public Access Improvements. The Planning Department’s FY2016-17 Budget for the Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access Phase I Implementation (MAA21-005) includes $228,000 for schematic design, permitting, and construction documents. Funds for subsequent budget cycles will be included as part of the three-year Capital Improvement Program, which the Board will review and consider in May 2017. FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 MAA 21-005 Planning Budget $228,000 Spent to Date (as of 03/14/17): $73,096 Encumbered: $151,719 Proposed Contract Amendment (Harris Design): $0 $155,000 $100,000 $104,351 Budget Remaining: $3,185 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio budget, costs to date, and the fiscal impact related to MAA 21-005 Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access Phase I Implementation. MAA 21 Portfolio Allocation: $17,478,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 3/14/17): $593,183 Total Encumbrances: $188,601 Award of Contract to HydroScience Engineers (MAA21-003): $159,126 Award of Contract to Mesiti-Miller (MAA21-005): $132,894 Award of Contract to John Northmore Roberts and Associates (MAA 21-004): $922,190 Proposed Contract Amendment (Harris Design): $362,536 Total BCR Projects Budget Balances*: $1,116,295 Balance Remaining (Proposed): $14,003,175 *FY2017 BCR Projects Budgets less the proposed contracts, current encumbrances, and year-to- to-date expenditures, reflecting current fiscal commitments to other BCR projects this fiscal year. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW At the March 28, 2017 meeting, the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee reviewed and confirmed the recommended schematic design for the Alma College Parking area and at- grade trail crossing (Attachment 5). The Committee also reviewed the trail undercrossing conceptual design alternatives and confirmed a phased approach to the construction of the trail undercrossing. The Committee recommended forwarding to the full Board the contract amendment with Harris Design to complete design and engineering for a combined culvert-trail undercrossing. R-17-52 Page 4 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Additional noticing was sent to the residents along Bear Creek Road. CEQA COMPLIANCE Construction of the Alma College Parking Area and Trail Crossing 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 Harris Design to develop construction documents, which will form the basis for regulatory agency permit submittals. In Fall 2017, staff will bring the final design of the parking area, and schematic design of the culvert-trail undercrossing to the Board. Pending Board approval, construction contract will be brought to the Board in Spring 2018 for parking area construction. Final design of the combined Webb Creek Culvert and Undercrossing will be brought to the Board in late FY 2018-19. Attachment(s) 1. Project Location 2. Alma College Parking Area Preferred Schematic Design 3. Combined Webb Creek Culvert and Trail Undercrossing Conceptual Design 4. Recommended Contract Amendment List of Tasks and Cost Breakdown 5. PNR Committee Meeting Draft Minutes from March 28, 2017 Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Bryan Apple, Planner II Lisa Bankosh, Planner III Contact person: Bryan Apple, Planner II Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 f 1 ,4 -: r s �1 ♦'T;.• �. 1'.I, , 4. P', 11.'10 '31 ` ~1 Z ip • c ' A , ik i . 4 t ikt:',‘,, ,*(/'\11/2;fastkOititl . 1` \q '1 1. g-; } i r; 1 - /• `-r` A Attachment 4 Recommended Contract Amendment List of Tasks and Cost Breakdown Recommended Contract Amendment – Additional Tasks Amount 1. Trail Undercrossing Design and Upper Lake Spillway Connection $219,140 2. Replenishment of Contract Funds Set Aside for Later Phases of Work $13,555 3. Upper Lake Access Design $19,860 4. Webb Creek Culvert Replacement (Optional Task) $13,760 5. 15% Design Contingency $76,221 6. Permitting Allowance $20,000 Total $362,536 Trail Undercrossing Design and Upper Lake Spillway Connection Trail Undercrossing In January of 2017, the District met with the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department to discuss the Alma College Parking Area and at-grade trail crossing on Bear Creek Road. County Roads shared concerns with proposed safety improvements (asphalt striping, flashing lights) at the at-grade crossing, which are not typically installed at mid-block crossings on County roads. The District shared the concept of a potential undercrossing as a Phase II project. County Roads indicated that an undercrossing is preferred at this location, but that an at-grade crossing, and associated safety improvements, would be acceptable as a first phase. County Roads understood that the Phase I at-grade crossing may be removed once the new trail undercrossing is built and operational. The original Harris Design contract included an assessment of the structural integrity and hydraulic capacity of the Webb Creek culvert (Attachment 4A). Due to issues identified with the portion of the culvert that underlies Bear Creek Road, along with the desire to provide a safer path of travel for Preserve users, the concept of combining the Webb Creek culvert and trail undercrossing was identified. A feasibility analysis was completed for two trail undercrossing options, including a combined Webb Creek culvert-trail undercrossing, and a separate trail undercrossing. These options were vetted by the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee (R-17-39), who recommended the combined culvert-trail undercrossing. This recommendation was based on a number of factors including visitor experience, maintenance requirements, constructability, and compatibility with the open space character. A conceptual design of the combined culvert-trail undercrossing is included as Attachment 3 of Board Report R-17-52. Despite its advantages, the combined culvert-trail undercrossing will require permits from multiple regulatory agencies, including US Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as the County of Santa Clara. Due to the complexities of the regulatory process, the proposed contract amendment includes a permitting specialist. The anticipated length of the permitting process precludes construction of the undercrossing by the 2018 Preserve opening date; therefore, construction is expected during Phase II. The proposed contract amendment includes completion of the detailed trail undercrossing design and engineering, as well as its integration into the parking lot design plans, construction documentation, and construction administration assistance. Upper Lake Spillway Connection to Webb Creek Culvert A Pond Assessment detailing hydrological and structural assessment of the onsite pond features was completed in February of 2017. The consultant that prepared the Ponds Assessment study recommended a new spillway that connects overflows from Upper Lake to the Webb Creek watershed. The spillway would direct pond overflows from Briggs Creek to Webb Creek, which is a more stable watershed and has capacity to accept these flows. The appropriate location for the spillway, which will likely be a below-grade pipe, can be placed within the footprint of the Alma College Parking Area. Replenishment of Contract Funds Set Aside for Later Phases of Work The project scope was expanded to address numerous site and environmental constraints related to special status species, potential impacts to cultural resources, the discovered presence of a subsurface degraded culvert, and the adjacent Webb Creek drainage. In order to understand the significance of these constraints and develop the design options accordingly, the District authorized the consultant team to conduct additional data collection and analysis, resulting in several new, revised design options. The District also authorized the consultant team to evaluate the feasibility of a trail undercrossing by reallocating funds from tasks in subsequent phases of the project. These additional services and unexpected work required the full expenditure of the design contract contingency in the amount of $19,844, as well as the shifting of contract funds from tasks in later phases of the project. The recommended contract amendment includes the replenishment of the contract funds to complete future phases of work. Upper Lake Access Design During the PNR Committee Meeting, Committee members discussed the concept of providing public access to Upper Lake. This feature would focus the public’s interaction with Upper Lake to a desired location(s) consistent with the goals of the Pond Management Plan and the Western Pond Turtle Mitigation Plan, thereby avoiding multiple, voluntary, social trails along the pond’s edge that would impact habitat quality. Such a feature would likely be constructed at a later phase due to resource agency permitting requirements and timelines. Webb Creek Culvert Replacement (Optional Task) The installation of the combined Webb Creek culvert and trail undercrossing would replace approximately 100 feet of the most degraded section of the existing culvert. Approximately 490 feet of the culvert that extends beyond the road is currently scheduled to remain in place. This section runs below the proposed parking area. The structural evaluation of the culvert indicates no issue with this approach at this time. Nonetheless, the design team will further review this recommendation, and in the event a serious structural issue is identified, the proposed contract amendment includes the optional task of incorporating the entire culvert replacement into the parking area construction documents. A culvert replacement would require resource agency permits, and may significantly alter the schedule to open the Preserve. For this reason, the District would only pursue this optional task if replacement is deemed necessary to protect the investment of the parking area facility. 15% Design Contingency A new 15% contingency is recommended to replenish the original design contingency that was expended to fund the additional studies and analysis during the early design process. This work was required to better address site issues, including protection of Western Pond Turtle habitat and impact avoidance to cultural resources. Permitting Allowance Finally, a $20,000 allowance limited specifically for revisions to design documents resulting from the permitting process with the regulatory agencies is recommended given the multiple permits needed for the various project elements. This allowance would only be used if additional permit submittals, extensive permitting consultation, and multiple revisions are necessary beyond those already included in the scope of work. Attachment A: Webb Creek Culvert Assessment Report FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Civil • Environmental • Water Resource Engineering and Sciences Tel. (831) 426-9054 1525 Seabright Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 www.fallcreekengineering.com September 14, 2016 Lisa Bankosh Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Subject: Draft Culvert Condition and Capacity Technical Letter Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Santa Clara County, California Dear Ms. Bankosh: Fall Creek Engineering, Inc., (FCE) is pleased to present to you this Draft Culvert Condition and Capacity (C&C) Analysis Technical Letter. The information in this report was compiled using the historic data that was provided to FCE by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District), an extensive in-person condition inspection of the culvert, and hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. In this letter report, FCE includes a project Introduction, Condition Analysis, Capacity Analysis, and Recommendations. INTRODUCTION The Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve) is located in the Santa Cruz Mountain range approximately 1 mile west of the Bear Creek Road (BCR) exit off Highway 17. The Preserve encompasses 1,432 acres which contains historic Jesuit structures, several freshwater ponds, and expansive second growth redwood and fir forest. The District is preparing to open the facility for general public access in 2018. The Preserve is divided by BCR which is a moderately traveled commuter road that serves the nearby communities in the Santa Cruz Mountains. There is a large culvert adjacent to BCR that collects and conveys the entirety of Webb Creek which has a drainage area of 0.7 square miles. The culvert inlet is located on the west side of BCR and the culvert passes underneath the road, and extends into the ravine alongside Alma College Road as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 3. FCE has been retained to inspect the culvert and provide technical recommendations based on the condition and capacity of the drainage feature and the results of that analysis are presented below. Attachment A FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 1. Approximate location of culvert inlet and outlet The original concrete culvert was constructed in 1916 and was later lined with a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) in 1950. Since then, a number of improvements have been made, most notable, a concrete slurry lining on the culvert invert. The existing culvert is 60” in diameter, spans 587 feet and is constructed using a variety of materials including: highly corroded CMP, concrete slurry lined CMP and reinforced concrete. A comparison of the culvert materials is shown in Figure 2 Figure 2. Pipe culvert materials. Left to right: highly corroded CMP, concrete lined CMP, and concrete Culvert Outlet. Alma College Entrance Culvert Inlet. Webb Creek Entrance Upper Pond FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. CONDITION ANALYSIS FCE conducted a confined space entry into the culvert on July 19, 2016 to visually inspect and record the condition of the culvert. In strict adherence to OSHA regulations there was a supervisor, an attendant and a confined space entrant. The entrant was the only person allowed in the culvert at any given time, and safety was a primary concern. The entrant inspected the culvert from both ends of the pipe: the entrance along Webb Creek (inlet) as well as the entrance along Alma College Road (outlet). The entrant was able to record the condition of the culvert with the use of video and still photos, and the results of those findings have been analyzed and presented in this report. The following provides the results of the condition analysis. Culvert Condition from Upstream to Downstream The culvert inlet at Webb Creek has a concrete collar that supports the CMP as it crosses underneath BCR. According to a traffic memorandum conducted by Hexagon Traffic Consultants Inc., BCR is a two lane county road that supports a modest amount of commuter traffic during weekdays, as well as recreational traffic on weekends (Black 2015). The road has an overall width of 28 feet and has a 4-5 foot vertical drop off the eastern side of the road where the culvert crosses into the Preserve. An approximate map of the culverts location is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Approximate location of culvert with inlet and outlet highlighted in red. Note that minor pipe bends not shown and the true and accurate location of the culvert needs to be verified before any construction commences. FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. The condition of the culvert inlet on the along BCR is significantly damaged, and the damage can be visually noted from the outside of the culvert. Figure 4 shows the poor condition of the culvert; with up to 32” of the pipe invert completely corroded away, and up to 18” deep pools that expose the natural creek bed below the culvert. Figure 4. Damaged culvert inlet on the southwestern side of BCR at Webb Creek The condition of the first 66 feet of the CMP culvert is extremely impacted; especially in the segment that crosses underneath BCR. Major structural damage has occurred along that length of pipe, including; absence of pipe invert, complete pipe collapse, pipe buckling, pipe sagging and joint separation. This span of pipe is identified as the most probable source of hydraulic losses and possible pipe bed undercutting and overall destabilization. The depth of the creek channel that formed in the absence of the culvert measured up to 18-inches below the pipe’s invert. A significant separation of approximately 9 inches between pipe sections was noted 25.5 feet in from the culvert inlet and the damage can be seen in Figure 5. Figure 5. Separation at CMP pipe joint (looking into culvert from Webb Creek Inlet) Both sections of CMP culvert shown in Figure 5 were initially the same diameter, but over time, the corrosion along the pipe invert, combined with the soil pressure loading above, caused the pipe to FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. roll inwards and constrict the culvert’s inner diameter. The constricted culvert extends from 25.5 feet from the inlet to 62 feet from the inlet (approximately 36.5 lineal feet). The culvert shows additional pipe sagging and overall roof distortion at 62 feet from the culvert entrance, and the damage is shown in Figure 6. Figure 6. Roof collapse at 62 feet from entrance at Webb Creek (looking towards culvert outlet) The distortions in the pipe are a clear indication that the structural integrity of the culvert has been severely compromised. Four feet past the pipe roof collapse, at 66 feet from the inlet, there is another pipe joint that has completely separated that can be seen in Figure 7. Figure 7. Pipe joint separation at 66 feet from the culvert inlet (looking towards culvert inlet) The invert of the CMP culvert is lined with concrete slurry from 64 feet to 106 feet (42 lineal feet) until the CMP culvert transitions to a concrete culvert. The concrete culvert extends from 106 feet to 171 feet (65 lineal feet) and then transitions back to concrete slurry lined CMP for the remainder of the culvert length (416 lineal feet). FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. The general condition of the concrete slurry lined CMP was similar for the segment of pipe after the concrete culvert (171 feet) until the outlet along Alma College Road (416 lineal feet). Figure 10 shows a typical section of slurry lined CMP and indicates how the culvert is reliably transporting water during the conditions when the culvert was investigated. Figure 8. Typical section of concrete slurry lined CMP The single structural abnormality that was encountered within this segment of pipe was a significant pipe collapse at 422 feet from the inlet. The distortion impacts approximately 17 lineal feet of pipe and encompasses an approximately 9-inch pipe joint separation. The damaged section of pipe is shown in Figure 11. Figure 9. Left: Distorted CMP pipe 422 feet from inlet along BCR (looking towards inlet). Right: The 9-inch gap (looking towards outlet along Alma College Road). The cause of the roof collapse is unknown, however, it is apparent that the constriction in the pipe diameter would cause impeded flow during high flow conditions. FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Piped Inlets FCE identified 4 piped inlets of various sizes that all connect to the main culvert. The piped inlets are all constructed of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and have inside diameters of 24-inches, 12- inches, 12-inches, and 8.5-inches. A summary of the piped inlets is shown in Table 1 and images of the piped inlets are presented in Figure 8. Table 1. Drainage features encountered in main culvert Figure 10. Four piped inlets. Starting top left: Clockwise: 24-inch., 12-inch, 12-inch, 8.5-inch During the inspection, FCE was able to determine that three of the four piped inlets daylight as noted in Table 1. The fourth piped inlet had an old corroded steel pipe in the center that appeared to be approximately 4 inches in diameter and can be seen in Figure 9. Number Station (ft)*Description Notes 1 125 24" I.D. CMP culvert daylights 2 220 12" I.D. CMP culvert does not daylight 3 387 12" I.D. CMP culvert daylights 4 401 8.5" I.D. CMP culvert daylights * Station measured from inlet along Bear Creek Road FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 11. 12-inch piped inlet with steel pipe in center. The inlet of the steel pipe is unknown; however it is clear that water has historically flowed in this inlet as indicated by the corrosion along the invert of the pipe. It is unlikely that any of the piped inlets have an effect on the Upper Pond hydraulics due to their orientation to the Pond. All of the small piped inlets are likely serving as area drains for low points on the Preserve. Additional Site Considerations One of the added difficulties of the site is the presence of the San Andreas Fault line in relation to the culvert location. The fault line runs directly through the Preserve and can be seen in Figure 12. Figure 12. USGS generated map of San Andreas Fault crossing through site with approximate location of culvert shown. Actual location of culvert must be verified before any construction commences. San Andreas Fault Approximate location of Culvert 4-inch Steel Pipe FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. The presence of the fault line within such close proximity to the culvert may have been the cause of some of the pipe damage that was noted. The alignment of the culvert and the fault line parallel each other and slight subterranean shifts over the course of years may have impacted the culvert’s integrity and caused some of the pipe joint separation that was noted in Figure 5, Figure 7, and Figure 11. In addition to the condition analysis of the culvert, FCE was tasked with determining the hydraulic capacity of the existing culvert. FCE employed several methods to determine the peak design storm flow and determine whether or not the culvert is appropriately sized to handle the volume of water that will be generated in a design storm. CULVERT CAPACITY ANALYSIS Paired Watershed Analysis Webb Creek is an ungaged creek and FCE approximated peak flood conditions by conducting a paired watershed analysis (PWA) using known data at a gaged site. FCE conducted a paired watershed analysis between nearby Saratoga Creek and Webb Creek. The correlation is based on known peak annual flow data obtained from United States Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station 11169500, located along Saratoga Creek and the relationship between the areas of each watershed. The gaging station is located approximately 5.3 miles from the inlet of the culvert on Webb Creek and both creeks share very similar climate, precipitation, and topographic features. FCE utilized the USGS streamflow data for Saratoga Creek, in combination with the US Army Corp of Engineer’s Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Statistical Software Package (HEC-SSP), to analyze the flood flow frequency of Saratoga Creek. Peak discharge flows for Saratoga Creek were calculated for the 1, 2, 5, 10, 25 and 100-year return period design storm. The flow values that were generated for Saratoga Creek were then scaled by the ratio between the watershed areas of each creek to estimate the flow of Webb Creek. Saratoga Creek has a watershed area of 9.22 square miles and Webb Creek has a watershed area of 0.7 square miles which equates to a scaling factor of 13.2. The Peak discharge flows of Webb Creek are the result of dividing the Saratoga Creek peak discharge generated from HEC-SSP by the watershed scaling factor of 13.2. The results of the paired watershed analysis are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Peak Discharge values for Saratoga Creek and Webb Creek using HEC-SSP. Flood Frequency Saratoga Creek Peak Discharge (cfs) Webb Creek Peak Discharge (cfs) 2-yr 392 30 5-yr 920 70 10-yr 1,411 107 25-yr 1,991 151 50-yr 2,911 221 100-yr 3,735 284 FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. USGS gaging station 11169500 on Saratoga Creek has 82 discreet peak flow measurements that were recorded between the years of 1934 and 2014. This large database covers years of extreme drought and years of extreme flooding, which statistically improves the accuracy of the predicted peak flow values for Webb Creek. Regional Regression Equations In addition to estimating the peak flow of Webb Creek using the PWA, FCE employed the USGS California regional flood frequency equations, or regional regression equations (RRE). The equations are based on regression analysis that has been applied to data collected from 705 individual gauging stations throughout California and empirically verified for each region within the state. The annual peak discharge flows for the Central Coast region are estimated using the following equations: 2-yr (0.0061*A0.92)*(P2.54)*(H-1.10) 5-yr (0.118*A0.91)*(P1.95)*(H-0.79) 10-yr (0.583*A0.90)*(P1.61)*(H-0.64) 25-yr (2.91*A0.89)*(P1.26)*(H-0.50) 50-yr (8.20*A0.89)*(P1.09)*(H-0.41) 100-yr (19.7*A0.88)*(P0.84) *(H-0.33) Where: Q = peak discharge (cfs) A = drainage area (square miles) P = mean annual precipitation (in) H = altitude index (thousands of feet) The peak discharge for each storm frequency was determined using the following input data for Webb Creek: drainage area (A) was determined to be 0.7 square miles from an online GIS query using USGS StreamStats software (USGS 2016), mean annual precipitation (P) was estimated to be 43.3 inches from StreamStats and the altitude index (H) was determined from a Google Earth elevation query. Table 3 presents the results from the Webb Creek RRE analysis and Table 4 presents the results for both the RRE and PWA analysis. Table 3. Webb Creek RRE results Flood Frequency Webb Creek Peak Discharge (cfs) 2-yr 41 5-yr 97 10-yr 142 25-yr 201 50-yr 247 100-yr 300 FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Table 4. Webb Creek results comparison between PWA and RRE analysis The difference between the predicted peak discharge for the PWA as compared to that of the RRE was small especially for the 100-year return period design storm which had a percent difference of only 6%. For each return period design storm event, the RRE generated a more conservative estimate for the expected peak discharge, so FCE applied the values generated from the RRE to the capacity analysis. Capacity Analysis FCE utilized the RRE flow values from the 25-year and 100-year storm events to conduct a capacity analysis of the existing 60” diameter culvert. The design storms were selected based on the criteria outlined in the Santa Clara County Drainage Manual (SCCDM) and the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Highway Design Manual. The SCCDM states in section 5.1.5.2 Minimum Design Criteria for Culverts, that “Culverts shall be sized to pass the 25‐year design flow under free outfall conditions, without an inlet head in excess of the top of culvert, […][and] culvert sizing shall be checked under all inlet and outlet control conditions to safely pass the 100‐year design flow.” (SCCDM 2007) Additionally, section 821.3 of the CALTRANS Highway Design Manual indicates that a 100-year design flood should be used to size the culvert “with-out headwaters rising above an elevation that would cause objectionable backwater depths or outlet velocities.” (CALTRANS 2006) FCE used the Hydraflow software program that is part of the Autodesk Civil 3D software package to evaluate the culvert’s ability to convey the design storm. FCE analyzed both the 25- year design flow of 201 cfs and the 100-year design flow of 300 cfs. The results of the Hydraflow model can be seen in Figure 13 and Figure 14. The green line in the figure represents the embankment height, or in this instance the grade elevation of BCR, and the blue line represents the hydraulic grade line during the storm event. The black lines indicate the extent of the 60” circular CMP culvert. Flood Frequency PWA Peak Discharge (cfs) RRE Peak Discharge (cfs) 2-yr 30 41 5-yr 70 97 10-yr 107 142 25-yr 151 201 50-yr 221 247 100-yr 283 300 FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Figure 13. Hydraflow model for 25-year design storm After running the Hydraflow model it was apparent that the 60” diameter culvert is adequately sized to convey the 25-year design storm flow. The water surface elevation at the inlet of the culvert along Bear Creek Road rises under these circumstances; however the culvert maintains several feet of freeboard from the top of the embankment. FCE also ran a 100-year storm flow value of 300 cfs using the Hydraflow model and the results can be seen in Figure 14. Figure 14. Hydraflow model for 100-year design storm Based on the results of the Hydraflow analysis for the 100-year design storm, the existing culvert is inadequately sized to safely convey the design flow. The inlet of the culvert along Webb Creek is predicted to backwater and overtop the embankment, causing BCR to flood. The results of the FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. model suggest that the culvert needs to be replaced in order to satisfy the design requirements of the SCCDM and CALTRANS Highway Design Manual. The Hydraflow model generates a “best-case-scenario” for the flow conditions and doesn’t take into account other site conditions that may be associated with the 100-year design storm. Under the 100-year return period storm event, the culvert inlet would likely experience higher than normal volume of debris which could result in clogging of the inlet that would diminish the culvert’s ability to convey the design flow, and increase the amount of overtopping and flooding of BCR. Similarly, the constricted diameter of the culvert where the CMP rolled inward (Figure 4), combined with the decreased diameter due to the concrete slurry along the invert, would all contribute to non-ideal conditions that are not accounted for in the model. Finally, during a large storm event, the structural integrity of the culvert could become damaged even further due to increased scouring, headwall bank erosion, pipe bed undercutting and overall culvert destabilization. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FCE has determined that the structural condition of the 60” diameter culvert is compromised as indicated by the various forms of damage that were encountered during the condition analysis. The damage is most apparent within the first 66 feet from the culvert inlet along Webb Creek, and the structural implications of the damage are unknown. However, it is known that the options for repairing the culvert are limited due to the extent of damage as well as the constricted pipe diameter caused by inward pipe roll. The damaged culvert eliminates the possibility of slip-lining the culvert because the existing CMP is structurally jeopardized. On top of the apparent structural damage, the results of the capacity analysis indicate that the existing culvert is undersized and incapable of reliably conveying the 100-year design storm flow according to both the SCCDM and CALTRANS Highway Design Manual. This result confirms that the culvert will need to be replaced with a larger diameter option that will safely pass the 100- year flow underneath Bear Creek Road, without overtopping and negatively impacting the road. FCE recommends the following: 1. At minimum, replace the length of culvert that crosses underneath Bear Creek Road with a larger diameter culvert. In particular, the section that extends for the first 66 feet is the highest priority because it is the most structurally compromised. 2. As part of the continued culvert replacement design options, FCE recommends conducting additional analysis and assessment; including but not limited to: structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, biological surveys, hydrological modeling (HEC-RAS) and permitting requirement research. FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project. Please contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, ROBYN COOPER, MS, PE ALEX HILL, MS Senior Engineer Associate Engineer FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES Black, G.2015. Bear Creek Redwoods Traffic Study. Hexagon Traffic Consultants Inc. California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Highway Design Manual. 2006. Section 821.3 Selection of a Design Flood. Santa Clara County Drainage Manual (SCCDM). 2007. Section 5.1.5.2 Minimum Design Criteria for Culverts. USGS. 2016. California StreamStats. Retrieved August 22, 2016, from http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/california.html PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 March 28, 2017 DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Director Riffle called the meeting of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee to order at to order at 2:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Pete Siemens and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Jed Cyr Staff Present: Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Planner II Bryan Apple, District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth, Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Lin, Planner III Lisa Bankosh, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 2-0-0 COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Selection of Committee Chair for Calendar Year 2017 Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to nominate Director Cyr as the Planning and Natural Resources Committee Chair for calendar year 2017. VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Cyr absent) Attachment 5 Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 2 March 28, 2017 2. Approve the October 5, 2016 Planning and Natural Resources Committee Minutes Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the minutes for the October 6, 2016 Planning and Natural Resources Committee meeting. VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Cyr absent) 3. Schematic Design of the Alma College Parking Area and Bear Creek Road Trail Crossing at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-17-39) Planner II Bryan Apple, Planner II provided the staff presentation reviewing the project goals and the proposed location of the Alma College parking lot. Staff encountered several design constraints related to the proposed location of the parking lot, including western pond turtle breeding ground, mountainous topography, nearby creeks, and Alma College cultural landscape. Mr. Apple introduced Bill Harris of landscape architectural firm Harris Design. Mr. Harris displayed and described several conceptual design options for the parking area and the schematic design recommended to address the various design constraints. Mr. Harris also described the proposed at-grade road crossing for the trailhead, including location and traffic signs. The estimated construction costs for Phase I of the parking lot and at-grade crossing are $1.2 million. Director Siemens inquired when and how the western trail network would be opened to the public, and suggested signage indicating a future trail will be built in the area. Mr. Apple explained staff is currently working on potential trail connections for the trail network in the western side of the preserve. Director Siemens inquired when cyclists will be able to access the preserve trails. Mr. Apple explained bicycle access will be part of the Phase II of the Preserve Plan as part of a multi-use trail. The proposed multi-use trail will end in the Alma College parking lot area. Director Riffle expressed his concern regarding the proposed size of the parking lot and asked regarding alternate parking areas and signage for safe parking areas. Mr. Apple explained an additional parking lot would be constructed as part of Phase II. Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz reported staff will be monitoring the parking lot and preserve use to address parking issues as they arise. Also the eastern trail system, which are more accessible and will most likely receive more use, will not be opened until additional parking areas are built. Director Riffle suggested interpretive and warning signage related to the Western Pond Turtle breeding area. Mr. Apple reported Natural Resources staff is creating a Western Pond Turtle mitigation plan to help address these concerns. Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 3 March 28, 2017 Directors Riffle and Siemens suggested the proposed shrubbery radial spokes from the pond are not necessary and to prioritize public access and Western Pond Turtle protection. Director Riffle suggested including the proposed benches in the memorial bench inventory and suggested including members of the public in the design process. Director Riffle expressed his concern regarding pedestrians crossing near the parking lot entrance. Mr. Harris discussed various options to address the concern and reported once the undercrossing is complete; the at-grade crossing will be decommissioned. Director Riffle suggested providing public access to the pond’s edge. Public comment opened at 3:37 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 3:37 p.m. Mr. Apple introduced Robyn Cooper of Fall Creek Engineering to present information regarding two proposed undercrossing options. Ms. Cooper described the combined or separated undercrossing options, including the constraints and advantages of each. Ms. Cooper also discussed the potential flooding of an undercrossing due to storm water flow and possible debris blockages. Mr. Harris displayed various renderings of a potential combined or separated undercrossing. A combined undercrossing could cost between $500,000 and $750,000, and a separated crossing would cost more due to required walls and the western trail approach. Mr. Apple further discussed the pros and cons of the combined and separated undercrossings. Director Siemens suggested evaluation of the current culvert is necessary before the parking lot was constructed. Mr. Apple reported the culvert under the parking lot currently appears to be structurally sound, and replacement would require additional permitting and delays. Staff and the consultant will further evaluate the culvert. Director Riffle expressed concern regarding flooding the undercrossing in large storms. Ms. Cooper explained the undercrossing would be designed to minimize impact on the trail; however, the type of large storm that could cause trail flooding would also likely require closure of the preserve and parking lot. Public comment opened at 4:11 p.m. No speakers present. Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 4 March 28, 2017 Public comment closed at 4:11 p.m. Mr. Apple reviewed the proposed schedule for the project Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to: 1. Confirm the recommended schematic design for the parking area to allow the General Manager to direct staff to proceed with further design development. 2. Confirm a recommended phased approach to construction of the Bear Creek Road trail undercrossing Option A as presented. 3. Recommend to the full Board of Directors a contract amendment with Harris Design to complete design and engineering for a combined culvert-trail undercrossing. VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Cyr absent) ADJOURNMENT Director Riffle adjourned the meeting of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 4:21 p.m. ___________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk R-17-50 Meeting 17-10 April 26, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Annual Integrated Pest Management Report, 2016 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No Board action required. SUMMARY On December 10, 2014 (R-14-34), the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Board of Directors adopted the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Integrated Pest Management Program and approved the Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM) and Policy. The program requires an annual report of pest management activities that describes past pest control activities, both chemical and non-chemical, on District lands. This report presents the results of the second year of pest management activities prescribed under the District IPM Program. The District treated thirty-three species, including seventeen listed noxious weeds (plants that have been defined as a pest by state law or regulation) using a variety of treatment methods. Treatment methods that included the use of chemicals did so using only Board approved chemicals. Overall, the second year of implementing the IPM Program has resulted in an additional 7.4 acres of District land being treated. Eleven new projects were added to the existing 310 projects in progress. DISCUSSION Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a long-term, science-based, decision-making system that uses a specific methodology to manage damage from pests. The District defines pests in its Resource Management Policies as “animals or plants that proliferate beyond natural control and interfere with natural processes, which would otherwise occur on open space lands,” and target pests as “plant or animal species that have a negative impact on other organisms or the surrounding environment and are targeted for treatment.” IPM requires monitoring site conditions before, during, and after treatment to determine if objectives are being met and if methods need to be revised. On December 10, 2014 (R-14-34), the District’s Board of Directors adopted the Final Environmental Impact Report for the IPM Program and approved the IPM Program and Policy. As a component of the IPM Program, an Annual Report is required to be prepared describing the pest management activities undertaken and comparing past pest control activities, both chemical and non-chemical, on District lands. The IPM Program identified criteria for assessing the program R-17-50 Page 2 every year primarily regarding protection of human health in buildings, protection of natural resources in the preserves, training, and clear communication with the public. The attached Annual Report (Attachment 1) is the second annual report prepared for the IPM Program and describes the IPM activities undertaken in 2016. Some of the highlights from the second year of the program, detailed in the annual report, are listed below: Summary of Pest Problems Thirty-three plant species found on District lands are treated on an on-going basis to control for asset based protection and long-term management. These species have the potential to invade natural areas and displace native species and reduce biodiversity. Of the listed species, seventeen are considered noxious weeds by the State of California. New potential pest control projects were summited to the IPM Coordinator using the District’s new Pest Control Project Form. Potential projects were evaluated using the Project Ranking System developed by the IPM Coordination Team during this year. Eleven new pest control projects were determined to have high priority for treatment on District lands. Summary of District Pest Control Treatments Table 1: Treatment hours by crew type, below, presents the number of hours during the 2016 calendar year expended by staff, contractors, and volunteers controlling pest species on District Natural Areas: Table 1: Treatment hours by crew type Treatment Method Hours Staff Contractor Volunteer Brush Cut / Mow Monitoring and data collection Protocols under development 365 0 Cut 54 316 Dig 299 415 Herbicide 598 0 Pull 343 2152 Total 1659 2883 Manual removal of weeds via pulling remains the most prevalent treatment method at 55% of all hours; herbicide accounts for 13% of all hours. As was the case with the prior year (2015), some monitoring protocols were still in development during the year, and changes to the data collection protocol resulted in data sets that did not permit analyses of some metrics, most significantly the calculation of staff time expended conducting specific treatment methods. Additionally, brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones is not presented because these actives do not change from year to year. The District has partnered with CalFlora, a non-profit organization, in which treatment data is collected and stored in a cloud based database. During 2016, incomplete legacy data was transferred to CalFlora due to incompatible data sets resulting in unknown staff hours. As data is made available with the use of the CalFlora Database, additional analysis will occur in future years. R-17-50 Page 3 Figure 1 below presents an analysis of treatment costs per infested acre, derived from contractor pest treatments data. Although cutting is the most cost effective treatment option, it is limited to a very few plant species (e.g. teasel). Hand pulling target species is the most expensive option, but is also considered the most precise and in most cases the most ecologically sensitive. Future reports will present total summaries of treatment cost per acre; however, because staff time was not tracked per individual treatment method, analysis of cost per acre by District staff cannot be calculated this year. Effectiveness of District’s Pest Control Program When chemical pesticides are used on District lands, the District is committed to the use of lower pesticide exposure classification products in buildings and recreational structures for worker and visitor health and safety. Pesticides used in buildings and at recreational structures in 2016 were consistent with the 6 approved structural pesticides, all of which are “Caution” label (as opposed to “Warning” or “Danger” labels) and therefore pose a reduced risk to workers or occupants of treated buildings. In natural areas, herbicide and non-herbicide methods were used to control high priority invasive plants to protect and restore native vegetation at preserves. The District seeks a reduction in per- acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites, but acknowledges that in some instances use will initially increase, followed by a reduction in herbicide use when the pest is eliminated or reduced to a level that can be effectively managed with non-herbicidal methods. Methods used on District lands to reduce pesticide usage include the techniques of mow/spray/mow and timed mowing. To reduce herbicide use, workers will first mow larger vegetation and once the vegetation has re-sprouted to a vulnerable stage, workers apply an herbicide treatment and then re-mow once dead. Staff performed this technique on stinkwort with great success at the Hicks Creek Ranch parking area (Sierra Azul OSP). An additional method employed is timed mowing, for example of yellow star thistle at the Mindego Gateway area of Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, where the plant is mowed at the specific point in time in its growth cycle when it is most susceptible to the mowing to reduce the density and seed dispersion. Figure 1: Treatment costs per infested acre R-17-50 Page 4 Additionally, Midpen uses conservation grazing to manage fuel (flammable vegetation) for fire protection; enhance the diversity of native plants and animals; help sustain the local agricultural economy; and foster the region's rural heritage. Midpen uses conservation grazing on approximately 10,800 acres as a tool to manage grassland habitat on portions of 5 preserves. In the absence of natural disturbance (i.e. fire), the District periodically does brush removal on grasslands to slow the encroachment. Pesticide Use The reporting of pesticide use on District lands includes staff, contractors, and tenants. Table 2 below summarizes the known use of pesticides on District lands, excluding PG&E that is not covered under the District’s Integrated Pest Management Program, but is still required to report pesticide use to each County Agricultural Department. All PG&E work is reviewed by District staff and the use of herbicide is limited to the approved pesticide list under the IPM program. The District’s herbicide Best Management Practices and mitigation measures are adhered to by PG&E. Table 2: Pesticide use by active ingredient Pesticide Active Ingredient Amount Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz/Acre Fungicide Potassium salts of phosphorus acid 5011.2 22.6 256 Herbicide Aminopyralid 9.07 26.44 0.34 Clethodim 0.00 0.00 - Clopyralid 3.08 1.90 1.62 Glyphosate 3677.1 Measurement Protocols Under Development - Imazapyr 243.32 15.06 16.16 Insecticide Pyrethrin 420 N/A N/A Rodenticide Cholecalciferol 0 0 0 Recommended application rates, as specified on a product label, vary by Active Ingredient and formulation of any particular pesticide product. For example, the specified application rate for Roundup ProMax with glyphosate as the Active Ingredient ranges from 32 to 160 oz per acre, depending on the target plant species. The specified application rate for Milestone with Aminopyralid as the Active Ingredient ranges from 3 to 7 oz per acre, depending on the target plant species. As monitoring and data collection protocols were under development for staff in 2016, acres treated for the use of glyphosate was not collected. Thus, ounces of product used per acre cannot be calculated. R-17-50 Page 5 Figure 2: Comparative herbicide use for 2015 and 2016 Figure 2 above presents an analysis of the herbicides used by District staff and contractors to control pest plant species. The main active ingredient used is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-Up. Herbicide use has increased over the previous year. This increase is the direct result of intensive invasive species work at Bear Creek Redwoods. The initial knock down period is expected to last three year, after which an increase in both manual and mechanical treatment methods will partially replace the need for chemical applications. Public Notification and Inquiries Prior to, during, and after the application of a pesticide (including herbicides, insecticides, or other types of pesticides) on District preserves, employees and contractors post signs at the treatment area notifying the public, employees and contractors of the District’s use of pesticide. All contractors notify the District before application on any property, and comply with requirements for notification and posting of signs. There were no recorded public inquiries relating to the IPM Program. Compliance with the Guidance Manual The List of Approved Pesticides is intended to change over time as the science of pest control advances and more effective, safer, and less harmful pesticides are developed. As manufacturers update, discontinue, or substitute products and as the District’s target pests change over time, recommended additions or deletions of approved products will be made by staff. The changes to the Approved Pesticides list in the IPM Program is summarized in the table below. Staff will return to the Board for approval of these changes upon completion of the toxicological analysis of new products. Recommended updates to the List of Approved Pesticides are as follows: 61.5 0 0 2975 0 9.07 0 3.08 3677.1 243.32 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyphosate Imazapyr Product Quanity in Ounces Ac t i v e I n g r e d i a t e Comparative Herbicide Use for 2015 and 2016 2016 2015 R-17-50 Page 6 Table 3: Recommended updates to the List of Approved Pesticides Action Category Product Signal Word Memo Substitution Fungicide Agri-Fos Caution Agri-Fos and Reliant have the same active ingredient. Reliant can be purchased at a reduced price. Reliant Caution Addition Insecticide Wasp Freeze II Caution Toxicological research is now being prepared. Insecticide Python Dust Bag Caution Toxicological research is now being prepared. Herbicide Garlon 4 Ultra Caution Toxicological research is now being prepared. Herbicide Capstone Caution Toxicological research is now being prepared. Pesticides that have been identified as possible additions to the approved pesticide list under the IPM program are undergoing toxicological review by Blankinship and Associates of Davis, CA. This review is scheduled to be completed by the end of the fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT Receipt of the 2016 Annual IPM Report will not result in a fiscal impact. Implementation of the IPM Program occurs across several different Departments, including Land and Facilities, Visitor Services, and Natural Resources. Each Department separately budgets for pest management activities within the Department operating budget. Future annual reports will include analyses of the budgetary impacts of pest management activities as more data become available. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The IPM Policy established direction that an annual review of the IPM Program be completed by the full Board of Directors. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was sent to 168 interested parties and tenants by postal or electronic mail. CEQA COMPLIANCE All of the activities undertaken in 2016 to manage pests on District lands, and summarized in this report, were conducted in compliance with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Integrated Pest Management Program, which was approved by the Board on December 10, 2014. R-17-50 Page 7 NEXT STEPS Toxicological review of the additional pesticide will be completed by the end of the fiscal year. After the review, additional CEQA review will be completed and the recommended pesticide products brought to the full Board for possible inclusion on the List of Approved Pesticides. Attachment 1. IPM Annual Report, 2016 Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Prepared by: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator, Natural Resources | P a g e 2016 Coty Sifuentes-Winter Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Annual IPM Report Integrated Pest Management Program Goal: “Control Pests by consistent implementation of IPM principles to protect and restore the natural environment and provide for human safety and enjoyment while visiting and working on District lands.” i | P a g e i | P a g e Table of Contents List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. - 1 - 2 Implementation of IPM Program.............................................................................................................. - 1 - 3 Summary of Pest Problems ...................................................................................................................... - 2 - 4 Summary of Pest Control Treatments ...................................................................................................... - 6 - 5 Effectiveness of Pest Control Program ..................................................................................................... - 8 - 6 Summary of Pesticide Use ...................................................................................................................... - 22 - 7 Public Interactions .................................................................................................................................. - 23 - 8 Consultants and Contractors .................................................................................................................. - 26 - 9 Compliance with Guidance Manual........................................................................................................ - 27 - 10 List of Preparers and Contributors ......................................................................................................... - 28 - Appendix A - District Best Management Practices ......................................................................................... - 30 - Figure 1: Lupine Hill at Big Dipper Ranch ii | P a g e List of Figures Figure 1: Lupine Hill at Big Dipper Ranch ............................................................................................................... i Figure 2: Pre-Bid tour with weed contractors ..................................................................................................... iii Figure 3: Spray truck ......................................................................................................................................... - 1 - Figure 4: Bergman residence (Russian Ridge OSP) lacking defensible space. .................................................. - 2 - Figure 5: Hand pulling slender false brome at El Corte de Madera .................................................................. - 4 - Figure 6: Treatment Method Breakout ............................................................................................................. - 6 - Figure 7: Treatment Cost per Acre. Data Compiled only from contractor costs and acreage. ........................ - 7 - Figure 8: French broom seedlings at the Apple Orchard (La Honda OSP). ..................................................... - 10 - Figure 9: Contractors searching for Distaff thistle at Kneudler Lake. A. Mills ............................................... - 11 - Figure 10: Purple star thistle at Dricoll Ranch. A. Mills .................................................................................. - 13 - Figure 11: October Farms 2015 ...................................................................................................................... - 15 - Figure 12: October Farms 2016 ...................................................................................................................... - 15 - Figure 13: Advanced Resource Management Stewards tackle broom at St. Joseph's Hill ............................. - 16 - Figure 14: Herbicide use fro 2015 through 2016 ............................................................................................ - 23 - Figure 15: Pesticide Notification Sign ............................................................................................................. - 24 - Figure 16: French broom piles at Bear Creek Redwoods ................................................................................ - 25 - iii | P a g e List of Tables Table 1: Ongoing and general maintenance pest species ................................................................................ - 3 - Table 2: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects .................................................................. - 4 - Table 3: New Pests Control Projects ................................................................................................................. - 5 - Table 4: Treatment Methods and Hours in Naturals Areas .............................................................................. - 6 - Table 5: Pesticides Approved for Use in Buildings and Recreational Structures .............................................. - 8 - Table 6: Herbicide Use at Bear Creek Redwoods .............................................................................................. - 9 - Table 7: Herbicide Use at Los Trancos .............................................................................................................. - 9 - Table 8: Herbicide use at Skyline Ridge .......................................................................................................... - 10 - Figure 2: Pre-Bid tour with weed contractors iv | P a g e - 1 - | P a g e 1 Introduction This report presents the results of the second year of pest management activities prescribed under the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. The Program was established in 2014 upon adoption by the Board of Directors of the IPM Guidance Manual. Five policies set the foundation of the Program:  Develop specific pest management strategies and priorities that address each of the five work categories;  Take appropriate actions to prevent the introduction of new pest species to District preserves, especially new invasive plants in natural areas, rangeland, and agriculture properties;  Manage pests using the procedures outlined in the implementation measures;  Monitor pest occurrences and results of control actions and use adaptive management to improve results;  Develop and implement an IPM Guidance Manual to standardize pest management and IPM procedures across all District Lands. Figure 3: Spray truck - 2 - | P a g e 2 Implementation of IPM Program The second year of planned implementation actions was completed successfully. Full implementation of the IPM Program should be completed by December of 2018. Major aspects of the IPM Program to be developed include a landscape monitoring protocol and an Early Detection / Rapid Response Program. Figure 4: Bergman residence (Russian Ridge OSP) lacking defensible space. - 3 - | P a g e 3 Summary of Pest Problems This section is a summary of pest problems that the District has encountered during the year. 3.1 Ongoing and General Maintenance Thirty-three (33) pest species found on District lands are treated on an on-going basis (Table 1) to control for asset based protection and long-term management, an increase of two (2) species from 2015. These species have the potential to invade natural areas and displace native plant and wildlife species and reduce biodiversity. Of the listed species, seventeen (17) are considered noxious weeds by the State of California (Table 2), an increase of five (5) from 2015. Table 1: Ongoing and general maintenance pest species Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC rating CDFA rating Alert Additional Information Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood acacia Limited - - Aegilops cylindrica Jointed goatgrass - Noxious Weed - Aegilops triuncialis Barbed goatgrass High Noxious Weed - Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush - - - Native, grassland conversion Brachypodium sylvaticum Slender false brome Moderate Noxious Weed ALERT Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate Noxious Weed - Carthamus creticus Smooth distaff thistle - Noxious Weed - Carthamus lanatus Woolly distaff thistle Moderate Noxious Weed ALERT Centaurea calcitrapa Purple star thistle Moderate Noxious Weed - Centaurea melitensis Tocalote Moderate Noxious Weed - Centaurea solatitialis Yellow star thistle High Noxious Weed - Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Moderate Noxious Weed - Cistus incanus Hairy Rockrose - - - Non-native Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Moderate - - Cotoneaster franchetii Francheti cotoneaster Moderate - - Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom High Noxious Weed - Delairea odorata Cape Ivy High Noxious Weed - Dipsacus fullonum Fuller’s teasel Moderate - Dipsacus sativus Indian teasel Moderate - - 4 - | P a g e Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC rating CDFA rating Alert Additional Information Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort Moderate Noxious Weed ALERT Genista monspessulana French Broom High Noxious Weed - Hedera helix English ivy High - - Hirschfeldia incana Short podded mustard Moderate - Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Moderate - - Phytophthora ramorum Sudden Oak Death - - - Quarantine Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry High - - Silybum marianum Milk thistle Limited - - Spartium junceum Spanish Broom High Noxious Weed - Stipa miliacea Smilo grass Limited - - non-native Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusa head High Noxious Weed - Ulex europaeus Gorse High Noxious Weed - Vinca major Periwinkle Moderate - - Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur - - - Native, California red-legged frog habitat areas Table 2: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects Species Treated Cal-IPC Rating CDFA Rated Alert Year Limited Moderate High 2016 33 3 14 10 17 3 2015 31 4 12 8 12 4 3.2 New Pest Control Projects Potential pest control projects were summited to the IPM Coordinator using the Districts New Pest Control Project. Potential projects were evaluated using the Project Ranking System developed by the IPM Coordination Team. The Project Ranking System evaluates projects using five categories:  Safety, o Human health, o Environmental health,  Prevents and controls the most destructive pests,  Protection of biodiversity,  Provides for public engagement,  And is feasibility and effectiveness. Figure 5: Hand pulling slender false brome at El Corte de Madera - 5 - | P a g e Twelve (12) new pest control projects were determined to have high priority for treatment on District lands (Table 3). In addition, multiple projects at Bear Creek Redwoods were initiated in anticipation of it’s opening to the public in 2018. Table 3: New Pests Control Projects Scientific Name Species Cal-IPC rating CDFA rating Alert Gross Acres Infested Acres Acacia dealbata Silver wattle Moderate - 0.1 0.01 Aegilops triuncialis Barbed goatgrass High Noxious - 4.5 2.41 Brachypodium sylvaticum Slender false brome Moderate Noxious ALERT 0.1 0.01 Centaurea calcitrapa Purple star thistle Moderate Noxious - 10.7 1.07 Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star thistle High Noxious - 38.3 3.83 Crocosmia xcrocosmiiflora Montbretia Limited - - 0.1 0.01 Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort Moderate Noxious ALERT 0.2 0.02 Genista monspessulana French Broom High Noxious - 1.1 0.05 - 6 - | P a g e 4 Summary of Pest Control Treatments 4.1 Type of Control with Cost per Acre Treatment area and hours are not available for staff in 2016 due to data collection protocol under revision. The following data is for natural areas and does not take into account brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones. Brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones is not presented because these activities do not change from year to year. Table 4: Treatment Methods and Hours in Natural Areas Treatment Method Hours Total Staff1 Contractor Volunteer Brush Cut Transitional Year 365 0 365 Cut 54 316 370 Dig 299 415 714 Flame 0 0 0 Herbicide 598 0 598 Pull 343 2152 2495 TOTAL - 1659 2883 4542 Total hours shown on Table 4 are underreported due to staff hours and acreage not being recorded. Staff training on the use of the CalFlora data has been scheduled for spring of 2017. By April of 2017, all work performed will be memorialized and accessible to the public on CalFlora. Figure 6: Treatment Method Breakout 1 Staff Hours were not recorded into the Weed Database or CalFlora as this was a transitional year from one database to another. Brush Cut 8% Cut 8% Dig 16% Flame 0% Herbicide 13% Pull 55% Treatment Method Breakout - 7 - | P a g e Manual removal of weeds via pulling remains the most prevalent treatment method at 55% of all hours; herbicide accounts for 13% of all hours (Figure 4). Future reports will present total summaries of treatment cost per acre; however, data analysis is only available for “Cost per acre” with use of contractors. As data is made available with the use of the CalFlora Database, additional analysis will occur in future years. Figure 7: Treatment Cost per Acre. Data Compiled only from contractor costs and acreage. $3,203 $726 $4,222 $1,753 $9,409 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 Brush Cut Cut Dig Herbicide Pull Treatment Costs / Infested Acre - 8 - | P a g e 5 Effectiveness of Pest Control Program The IPM Program identified criteria for assessing the program every year primarily regarding:  Work health/exposure in buildings,  Reduction of pesticide use in buildings,  Per-acre herbicide use,  Preservation of biodiversity and natural resource values,  Public participation in pest control,  And staff training, public outreach, and educational activities. As data from consecutive years becomes available in the future, the IPM Annual Report will evaluate the reduction of the amount of herbicide used at individual sites in natural areas over time. Baseline data is becoming available to use in future years. Actions undertaken in 2015 to meet these criteria are described below. 5.1 Worker Health/Exposure in Buildings The District is committed to the use of lower pesticide worker health/exposure classifications in buildings and recreational structures. Pesticides used in buildings and at recreational structures in 2015 were consistent with the 6 approved structural pesticides (Table 5) for the 2014 IPM Program Environmental Impact Report, all of which are caution label and therefore pose a reduced risk to workers or occupants of treated buildings. A specific type of rodenticide bait is approved under very strict conditions, however, it was not prescribed and only prevention and traps were approved for rodent control in 2015. In addition, one application of Termidor HE (Caution label, with fipronil as the active ingredient) was used at the Administration Building for termites on December 17, 2015. Although termite control was not evaluated in the original IPM program, fipronil was an approved active ingredient evaluated for insect control under the original IPM Program and it was determined to be suitable for this particular project and consistent with the intent and environmental review of the IPM Program. Table 5: Pesticides Approved for Use in Buildings and Recreational Structures Pesticide Category Active Ingredient Product Formulation Purpose Signal Word Rodenticide Cholecalciferol Cholecalciferol baits Rodent control Caution Insecticide2 Indoxacarb Advion Gel baits Structural pest control Caution Hydroprene Gentrol Point Source Pest Control Caution Fipronil Maxforce Bait Station Ant Control Caution 2 Employees, contractors and tenants may install approved ant and roach bait stations in side buildings in tamperproof containers without review by a Qualified Applicator License/Certificate holder. - 9 - | P a g e Sodium tetraborate Terro Ant Killer II Ant Control Caution Diatomaceous earth Diatomaceous earth Structural pest control Caution 5.2 Reduction of Pesticide Use in Buildings The District seeks to comprehensively oversee all pesticide use in and around District buildings, including use by tenants, which is expected to result in an overall reduction of pesticide use in buildings, and in particular, eliminate use of pesticides not appropriate for use around human occupants or visitors, or which can inadvertently escape into the surrounding wildland environment. Since this is the first year of the IPM Program, there are no reliable numbers for comparing to structural pesticide use in prior years. Of several rodent and insect infestations in buildings reviewed this year, the IPM Coordinator was able to evaluate site-specific conditions and recommend sanitary practices for prevention and physical controls using snap traps. 5.3 Per-acre Herbicide Use The District seeks a reduction in per-acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites, but acknowledges that in some instances, use will initially increase, followed by a reduction in herbicide use when the pest is eliminated or reduced. Use of herbicides in natural areas was precautionary but comparative numbers cannot be provided until next year when work and data collection are conducted in a manner consistent with IPM from year to year. A trend analysis will be performed after four years of data has been compiled. Baseline data is available for the following preserves:  Bear Creek Redwoods  La Honda Creek  Los Trancos  Rancho San Antonio  Russian Ridge  Sierra Azul  Skyline Ridge  Thornewood Below is base line data for three select preserves: Table 6: Herbicide Use at Bear Creek Redwoods Herbicide Ounces Used Acres Per Acre Usage Aminopyralid 1.482 1,437 0.001 Clethodim 0 0 Clopyralid 0 0 Glyphosate 101.85 0.071 Imazapyr 243.32 0.169 Table 7: Herbicide Use at Los Trancos Herbicide Ounces Used Acres Per Acre Usage Aminopyralid 4.328 274 0.016 Clethodim 0 0 Clopyralid 0 0 - 10 - | P a g e Glyphosate 28.25 0.103 Imazapyr 0 0 Table 8: Herbicide use at Skyline Ridge Herbicide Ounces Used Acres Per Acre Usage Aminopyralid 0 2,143 0 Clethodim 0 0 Clopyralid 3.075 0.001 Glyphosate 0 0 Imazapyr 0 0 5.4 Preservation of Biodiversity and Natural Resource Values Below, District staff provides an annual qualitative assessment of natural resources conditions of IPM projects in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural properties in the Annual IPM Report. Figure 8: French broom seedlings at the Apple Orchard (La Honda OSP). 5.4.1 Natural Areas In natural areas, herbicide and non-herbicide methods were used to control high priority invasive plants to protect and restore native vegetation at preserves. Qualitative observations of note: 5.4.1.1 Mindego Hill In 2016, efforts to control purple star thistle, Centaurea calcitrapa, and smooth distaff thistle, Carthamus creticus continued in the Mindego Hill area of the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. The amount of purple - 11 - | P a g e star thistle continues to decline and most plants occur in scattered locations throughout the three pastures. However, smooth distaff thistle continues to be prominent in the Kneudler Lake area and should be reassessed to determine better timing and methods of control. Prior to any herbicide work for the 2016 season, a volunteer project was completed on April 7 th to remove purple star thistle and smooth distaff thistle rosettes along the newly opened Mindego Hill Trail. Contractor crews completed herbicide treatment with Milestone and hand removal on scattered purple star thistle plants in the rosette or bolting stage in all areas except Kneulder Lake by mid-June. Figure 9: Contractors searching for Distaff thistle at Kneudler Lake. A. Mills In addition to a decrease in purple star thistle, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) biologist conducting field studies on the endangered San Francisco Garter Snakes had a record year at Mindego Lake observing and marking 210 SFGS snakes. The population of SFGS in the Mindego Hill area continues to increase and efforts to enhance its habitat by controlling purple star thistle may be a contributing factor. The Big Springs area of Mindego Hill had a few scattered purple star thistle plants that were removed by hand. A small population of French broom will need continued follow-up so the Big Springs area should be swept every year for these invasive weeds. Smooth distaff thistle continues to be widespread throughout the Kneudler Lake area, and a few scattered plants were also located along the Mindego Hill Trail. The contractor crew completed an initial treatment with Milestone on bolting distaff thistle in the Kneudler Lake area in the beginning of June. Since the access road - 12 - | P a g e had not been mowed and fire danger increased, treatment was delayed until early July after Skyline maintenance staff mowed the access road. The initial treatment of distaff thistle in early June with Milestone proved to be ineffective after 4 weeks when the site was checked in early July. Results may have improved by waiting an additional 2 weeks to see the herbicide effects, but by early July distaff thistle in the area was already producing viable seed and the remaining distaff thistle was dug up with shovels and placed in piles for composting. In future years, it is recommended that distaff thistle be treated in rosette stage earlier in the season. At Mindego Hill distaff thistle can start producing viable seed by the end of June or early July and should be treated with herbicide or dug up prior to bolting. 5.4.1.2 Driscoll Ranch In 2016, efforts to control purple star thistle, Centaurea calcitrapa, continued in the Driscoll Ranch area of La Honda Open Space Preserve. The primary focus of purple star thistle removal continues to be in pastures 4, 5 and 6, and along Sears Ranch Road and small portions of pastures 1 and 2. Purple star thistle is declining in these target areas and in general plants are scattered throughout the landscape. Areas around the Wool house were added as a priority for treatment in 2016 due to the scheduled demolition activities in the fall of 2016. The contractor crew completed hand removal of purple star thistle rosettes during the month of March due to rains and saturated soils. Hand removal initially focused on Pasture 4 around upper and lower Turtle Ponds, and near any creeks, drainages, or other areas that hold water during the wet months. A complete sweep of pasture 4 allowed for hand removal of all purple star thistle rosettes encountered in March. A patch of French broom along a drainage was also pulled. - 13 - | P a g e Figure 10: Purple star thistle at Driscoll Ranch. A. Mills After completing hand removal in pasture 4, a sweep of Sears Ranch Road and small portions of pasture 1 and 2 that border Sears Ranch Road was completed to hand remove any purple star thistle rosettes encountered. The contractor crew continued to sweep through all areas of pasture 5 and 6 to complete hand removal. Purple star thistle is mostly scattered along the road edges in pastures 5 and 6. A small population of smooth distaff thistle in pasture 6 is located along the road going to the former Wool House past pond DR06 and was removed with shovels. The Wool house area has a much higher density of purple star thistle rosettes than other priority treatment areas and these were removed by hand and treated with Milestone prior to demolition activities. A follow-up herbicide treatment with Milestone occurred later in the season in May to treat any plants that had been missed throughout the target areas. Purple star thistle continues to decline in Pasture 4, 5, and 6 and most plants occur in scattered locations, especially along roads and near ponds. Some areas around lower Turtle Pond have higher densities of purple star thistle and these areas should continue to be targeted to help enhance habitat for the California red-legged frog and western pond turtle. Removal of small rosettes by hand early in the season and continued follow-up is an effective way to continue to enhance these priority areas. In addition to contractor hand removal and herbicide applications, at least one volunteer project focused on hand removal of invasive species around pond DR06. Volunteers provide additional means of controlling invasive, non-native weed species especially in areas where herbicide application cannot be completed. Volunteer projects should continue to occur in areas around the ponds to enhance habitat for the California red-legged frogs. - 14 - | P a g e Treatment of purple star thistle should continue to occur in priority areas of pastures 4, 5 and 6, along Sears Ranch Road, and small portions of pastures 1 and 2 along Sears Ranch Road. As staff availability and contractor funding and availability allow, treatment of purple start thistle should continue to extend further into the preserve. Target areas should focus on areas that will be open to the public in the Fall of 2016 to prevent further spread of these non-native invasive weeds. 5.4.2 Rangeland Midpen uses conservation grazing to manage fuel (flammable vegetation) for fire protection; enhance the diversity of native plants and animals; help sustain the local agricultural economy; and foster the region's rural heritage. Midpen uses conservation grazing on approximately 10,800 acres as a tool to manage grassland habitat on portions of these five preserves:  Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve  Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve  Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve  Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve  La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve In the absence of natural disturbance (i.e. fire), the District periodically does brush removal on grasslands to slow the encroachment. - 15 - | P a g e Figure 11: October Farms 2015 Figure 12: October Farms 2016 - 16 - | P a g e 5.4.3 Agricultural Properties Assessment of agricultural properties, which represent a very small area of District land, will begin in May of 2017. 5.5 Summary of Public Participation in Pest Control The public is an integral part of the success of the IPM program. In particular, volunteers who assist with invasive plant identification and control are a valuable asset to the IPM program. In 2016, the District’s Preserve Partner volunteers contributed 2,685 hours to Resource Management through eighty-three outdoor service projects. The District hosted twenty-one Special Group projects, a subset of the Preserve Partners, which include school groups, technology companies, scout troops, running clubs and community groups. Preserve Partner projects were held in nineteen open space preserves. Preserve Partner projects focused primarily on invasive plant control addressing twenty invasive species: French broom, Spanish broom, English ivy, slender false brome, purple star thistle, yellow star thistle, Italian thistle, bull thistle, hemlock, teasel, cocklebur, stinkwort, summer mustard, coyote brush, barbed goat grass, jointed goat grass, medusa head, tocalote, harding grass, and jubata grass. French broom removal dominated Preserve Partner projects with French broom removal projects taking place in twelve open space preserves. Figure 13: Advanced Resource Management Stewards tackle broom at St. Joseph's Hill There were twenty-four active Advanced Resource Management Stewards (ARMS) in 2016. The ARMS volunteers work independently on resource management projects on their own time. To attack key populations of invasive plants more effectively, the Volunteer Program Lead recruits the ARMS for mobile “strike teams”. In 2016, fifteen ARMS “strike teams” were deployed. In total, the ARMS volunteers contributed 1,291 hours to resource management with project sites located in twenty open space preserves. - 17 - | P a g e The Volunteer Program Manager formalized stewardship partnerships with three organizations in 2016: Grassroots Ecology, (formerly Acterra), Village Harvest, and the Student Conservation Association. Grassroots Ecology contributed 662 hours of resource management at two sites: French broom removal in the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve at the Hawthorns along Portola Rd. and yellow star thistle at the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve parking lot. Village Harvest contributed 150 hours of resource management in the orchard at the Steven’s Canyon Ranch in the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. The Student Conservation Association contributed 288 hours of resource management over five project days at five different open space preserves. 5.6 Summary of Staff Training, Public Outreach, and Educational Activities 5.6.1 Staff Training The mandatory annual Pesticide Safety and Training was held at both field offices in May of 2016. All California Department of Pesticide Regulation required training information was presented by the District’s Pest Control Advisor (PCA), Mark Heath of Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. In October 2016, the IPM coordinator, Resource Management Specialist I, Volunteer Program Lead, and Maintenance Supervisor participated in the annual California Invasive Species Council symposium. 5.6.2 Public Outreach 5.6.2.1 ABC News On September 3, 2016, the District IPM Coordinator was interview by ABC News on the use of the smart phone app, INaturalist. INaturalist is a citizen scientist tool for documenting location of plant species. 5.6.2.2 Open Space Views newsletter  Teaming up with Actrerra to Bring New Volunteers to Open Space  (Mailing list: 14,413; Email list: 4,275) - 18 - | P a g e 5.6.2.3 Facebook Posts January 24, 2016 1,763 people reached; 31 Likes, Comments & Shares - 19 - | P a g e February 8, 2016 124 People Reached; 4 Likes, Comments & Shares - 20 - | P a g e March 7, 2016 2,049 People Reached; 62 Likes, Comments & Shares 5.6.2.4 Twitter - 21 - | P a g e - 22 - | P a g e 6 Summary of Pesticide Use The reporting of pesticide use on District lands includes the following entities:  Staff  Contractors  Tenants The following tables summarizes the known use of pesticides on District lands, excluding PG&E which is not covered under the District’s Integrated Pest Management Program, but is still required to report pesticide use to each County Agricultural Department. Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre Max Legal Rate (oz. per 36” tree)3 Fungicide (preventative treatment for Sudden Oak Death) Potassium salts of phosphorus acid 5,011.2 22.6 221.7 256 Oz. Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used Acres Treated Oz / Acre3 Max Legal Rate4 (Oz/Acre) Herbicide Aminopyralid 9.07 26.44 0.34 7.0 Clethodim 0.00 0.00 - 26 Clopyralid 3.08 1.90 1.62 10.7 Glyphosate 3677.10 Unable to Determine5 - 224 Imazapyr 243.32 15.06 16.16 48 Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre Insecticide Pyrethrin 420 N/A N/A Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre Rodenticide Cholecalciferol 0 0 N/A 3 Ounces per acre can only be compared when product formulations have the same Active Ingredient. For example, the rate for Roundup ProMax with glyphosate as the Active Ingredient is 32 to 160 oz per acre. The rate for Milestone with Aminopyralid as the Active Ingredient is 3 to 7 oz per acre. 4 Maximum legal rate is the maximum amount of product that can legally be used per the label of the product . 5 Unable to determine area treated from staff with Roundup due to data protocol transition to CalFlora. - 23 - | P a g e Figure 14: Herbicide use from 2015 through 2016 Herbicide use increased over the previous year. This increase is the direct result of intensive invasive species work at Bear Creek Redwoods. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyphosate Imazapyr Product Quanity in Ounces Ac t i v e I n g r e d i a t e Herbicide Use for 2015-16 2016 2015 - 24 - | P a g e 7 Public Interactions 7.1 Notifications 7.1.1 Pesticide Applications Prior, during, and after the application of a pesticide (including herbicides, insecticides, or other types of pesticides) on District preserves, employees or contractors post signs at the treatment area notifying the public, employees and contractors of the District’s use of pesticide. Posting periods designated below are the District’s minimum requirements; signs may be posted earlier and left in place for longer periods of time if it serves a public purpose or if it provides staff flexibility in accessing remote locations.  For pesticide application in outdoor areas of all District-owned preserves and in buildings which are not occupied or are rarely visited (e.g. pump houses), signs are posted at the treatment areas 24 hours before the start of treatment until 72 hours after the end of treatment. Signs stating “Pesticide Use Notification” are placed at each end of the outdoor treatment area and any intersecting trails.  For urgent application of pesticides to control stinging insects, signs are posted at the treatment area 72 hours after the end of treatment, but no pre-treatment posting is required.  For pesticide application in occupied buildings such as visitor centers, offices and residences, notification is provided to building occupants (employees, visitors, residents) 24 hours before the start of treatment by email, letters or telephone calls. Additionally, for buildings which might be visited by more than just a single family, signs stating “Pesticide Use Notification” will be placed at the entrances to the building 24 hours before the start of treatment until 72 hours after the end of treatment. The use of approved insecticidal baits in tamper-proof containers require notification 24 hours before the start of treatment by email, letters or telephone calls, but will not require posting of signs.  The information contained in the pesticide application signs include: product name, EPA registration number, target pest, preserve name and/or building, date and time of application, and contact person with telephone number. The contact person is the IPM Coordinator.  On lands that the District manages but does not own (e.g., Rancho San Antonio County Park), the District will provide notification of pesticide use in the same manner and applying the same actions as it does with its properties, unless the contracting agencies have adopted more restrictive management Figure 15: Pesticide Notification Sign - 25 - | P a g e standards. In those cases, the more restrictive management standards would be implemented by the District.  In the event of an immediate public safety concern, notification occurs at the time of treatment but pre-posting may not be possible. All contractors notify the District before application on any property, and comply with requirements for notification and posting of signs described above. At the discretion of the District staff and depending on the site conditions, neighboring landowners are notified if the District is conducting pest management near a property line. 7.2 Inquiries None to Report. Figure 16: French broom piles at Bear Creek Redwoods - 26 - | P a g e 8 Consultants and Contractors 8.1 CalFlora - $20,000 Cloud-based database for georeferenced data on plant species and the work performed on District-managed properties by staff, contractors, and volunteers. 8.2 Confluence Restoration - $15,780 Mindego Gateway (Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve) plant maintenance and weeding. 8.3 Ecological Concerns, Inc. - $204,900 Treatment of various weeds at Bear Creek Redwoods, La Honda, Los Trancos, Russian Ridge, and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves. 8.4 Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. - $5,690 Preparation of Pest Control Recommendations and the annual pesticide safety-training requirement. - 27 - | P a g e 9 Compliance with Guidance Manual 9.1 Effectiveness of Changes 9.2 Experimental Pest Control Projects 9.2.1 Barbed Goat Grass (Aegilops triuncialis) A population of barbed goat grass was found and identified by Stan Hooper at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. Originally, it was mapped at about two gross acres in 2015. Treatment started in 2016 and it was determined at that time that the infestation was much larger than previously thought, 6.5 gross acres of which 2.5 acres are infested. The District is treating with two timed mows during late spring with follow up by volunteers to hand pull any remaining re-sprouts. The District plans to experiment with other treatment options in 2018, specifically the use of Roundup Pro Max and Envoy Plus. 9.2.2 Slender False Brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) In spring of 2016, the District begun consultation with Santa Clara University to set up an experiment looking at non-herbicide and herbicide options on slender false brome. Test plots on a private property has been set up. Results are expected in three years. 9.3 Changes to Guidance Manual or Control 9.3.1 Updating the List of Approved Pesticides The List of Approved Pesticides is intended to change over time as the science of pest control advances and more effective, safer, and less harmful pesticides are developed; as manufacturers update, discontinue, or substitute products; and as the District’s target pests change over time. 9.3.2 Product Substitutions When manufacturers substitute a product or change a product name or formulation, but when the active ingredient stays the same, the new product can be substituted for the old product on the List of Approved Pesticides. In general, this type of change to the list would not trigger a change in condition or result in the need for additional environmental documentation. Therefore, this change typically will require a simple update to the List of Approved Pesticides. 9.3.2.1 Agri-Fos - Reliant The District uses the fungicide, Agri-Fos, for the preventative treatment of sudden oak death. The fungicide Reliant has the same active ingredient, mono- and di-potassium salts of phosphorous acid and is available at a reduced price. 9.3.3 Product Eliminations In instances where products on the list are no longer available from the manufacturer, are found to be ineffective against the District’s target pests, or if new risks are discovered that were not previously evaluated by the District, a product may be eliminated from the List of Approved Pesticides. This type of - 28 - | P a g e change requires an update to the List of Approved Pesticides, but does not require additional environmental review. 9.3.4 Product Additions In instances where new products with new active ingredients are found to be safer, more effective, and/or less costly than products on the on the List of Approved Pesticides, the District may elect to add new pesticides. This type of change typically requires additional toxicological review, and depending on the results, may also require additional environmental review. A toxicological review should be completed by the end of spring 2017 on four new pesticides:  Insecticide o Python Dust Bag o Wasp Freeze II  Herbicide o Garlon 4 Ultra o Capstone After the toxicological review is completed, CEQA will be undertaken to evaluate selected pesticides. CEQA should be completed by fall of 2017 and brought to the full board for approval. - 29 - | P a g e 10 List of Preparers and Contributors Jean Chung, Property Management Specialist I Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager Amanda Mills, Resource Management Specialist I Coty Sifuentes-Winter, IPM Coordinator Michael Bankosh, Maintenance, Construction, and Resource Supervisor Cydney Bieber, Web Administrator Brian Fair, Open Space Technician Ellen Gartside, Volunteer Program Lead Stan Hooper, Maintenance, Construction, and Resource Supervisor Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Management Specialist - 30 - | P a g e Appendix A - District Best Management Practices District BMPs for IPMP BMP ID# Best Management Practices 1 All pesticide use shall be implemented consistent with Pest Control Recommendations prepared annually by a licensed Pest Control Advisor. 2 Surfactants and other adjuvants shall be used and applied consistent with the District’s Pest Control Recommendations. 3 Applicators shall follow all pesticide label requirements and refer to all other BMPs regarding mandatory measures to protect sensitive resources and employee and public health during pesticide application. 4 Pesticide applicators shall have or work under the direction of a person with a Qualified Applicator License or Qualified Applicator Certificate. Contractors and grazing and agricultural tenants may apply approved herbicides after review and approval by the District and under the direction of QAL/QAC field supervisors. Employees, contractors and tenants may install approved ant and roach bait stations inside buildings in tamper-proof containers without review by a QAL/QAC. Tenants may not use rodenticides; only qualified District staff or District contractors may use approved rodenticides and these should only be used in the event of an urgent human health issue and in anchored, tamper-proof containers inside buildings. 5 All storage, loading and mixing of herbicides shall be set back at least 300 feet from any aquatic feature or special-status species or their habitat or sensitive natural communities. All mixing and transferring shall occur within a contained area. Any transfer or mixing on the ground shall be within containment pans or over protective tarps. 6 Appropriate non-toxic colorants or dyes shall be added to the herbicide mixture to determine treated areas and prevent over-spraying. 7 Application Requirements - The following general application parameters shall be employed during herbicide application:  Application shall cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications, when wind at site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour (MPH), or when precipitation (rain) occurs or is forecasted with greater than a 40 percent probability in the next 24 -hour period to prevent sediment and herbicides from entering the water via surface runoff;  Spray nozzles shall be configured to produce a relatively large droplet size;  Low nozzle pressures (30-70 pounds per square inch [PSI]) shall be observed;  Spray nozzles shall be kept within 24 inches of vegetation during spraying;  Drift avoidance measures shall be used to prevent drift in locations where target w eeds and pests are in proximity to special-status species or their habitat. Such measures can consist of, but would not be limited to the use of plastic shields around target weeds and pests and adjusting the spray nozzles of application equipment to limit the spray area. 8 Notification of Pesticide Application – Signs shall be posted notifying the public, employees, and contractors of the District’s use of pesticides. The signs shall consist of the following information: signal word, product name, and manufacturer; active ingredient; EPA registration number; target pest; preserve name; treatment location in preserve; date and time of application; date which notification sign may be removed; and contact person with telephone number. Signs shall generally be posted 24 hours before the start of treatment and notification shall remain in place for 72 hours after treatment ceases. In no event shall a sign be in place longer than 14 days without dates being updated. See the IPM Guidance Manual for details on posting locations, posting for pesticide use in buildings and for exceptions. 9 Disposal of Pesticides – Cleanup of all herbicide and adjuvant containers shall be triple rinsed with clean water at an approved site, and the rinsate shall be disposed of by placing it in the batch tank for application. Used containers shall be punctured on the top and bottom to render them unusable, unless said containers are part of a manufacturer’s container recycling program, in which case the manufacturer’s instructions shall be followed. Disposal of non-recyclable containers shall be at legal dumpsites. Equipment shall not be cleaned and personnel shall not bathe in a manner that allows contaminated water to directly enter any body of water within the treatment areas or adjacent watersheds. Disposal of all pesticides shall follow label requirements and local waste disposal regulations. 10 All appropriate laws and regulations pertaining to the use of pesticides and safety standards for employees and the public, as governed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and local jurisdictions shall be followed. All applications shall adhere to label directions for application rates and methods, storage, transportation, mixing, and container disposal. All contracted applicators shall be appropriately licensed by the state. District staff shall coordinate with the County Agricultural Commissioners, and all required licenses and permits shall be obtained prior to pesticide application. 11 Sanitation and Prevention of Contamination - All personnel working in infested areas shall take appropriate precautions to not carry or spread weed seed or plant and soil diseases outside of the infested area. Such precautions will consist of, as necessary based on site conditions, cleaning of soil and plant materials from tools, equipment, shoes, clothing, or vehicles prior to entering or leaving the site. 12 All staff, contractors, tenants, and volunteers shall be properly trained to prevent spreading weeds and pests to other sites. 13 District staff shall appropriately maintain facilities where tools, equipment, and vehicles are stored free from invasive plants. - 31 - | P a g e District BMPs for IPMP BMP ID# Best Management Practices 14 District staff shall ensure that rental equipment and project materials (especially soil, rock, erosion control material and seed) are free of invasive plant material prior to their use at a worksite. 15 Suitable onsite disposal areas shall be identified to prevent the spread of weed seeds. 16 Invasive plant material shall be rendered nonviable when being retained onsite. Staff shall desiccate or decompose plant material until it is nonviable (partially decomposed, very slimy, or brittle). Depending on the type of plant, disposed plant material can be left out in the open as long as roots are not in contact with moist soil, or can be covered with a tarp to prevent material from blowing or washing away. 17 District staff shall monitor all sites where invasive plant material is disposed on-site and treat any newly emerged invasive plants. 18 When transporting invasive plant material off-site for disposal, the plant material shall be contained in enclosed bins, heavy-duty bags, or a securely covered truck bed. All vehicles used to transport invasive plant material shall be cleaned after each use. 19 Aquatic Areas –A District-approved biologist shall survey all treatment sites prior to work to determine whether any aquatic features are located onsite. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years. Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. Aquatic features are defined as any natural or manmade lake, pond, river, creek, drainage way, ditch, spring, saturated soils, or similar feature that holds water at the time of treatment or typically becomes inundated during winter rains. If during the survey it is found that aquatic features are present within 15 feet of the proposed treatment area, the District shall either eliminate all treatment activities within 15 feet of the aquatic feature from the project (i.e. do not implement treatment actions in those areas) or if the District chooses to continue treatment actions in these areas, it shall follow the requirements of the mitigation measure for special-status wildlife species and the CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement. 20 Application of herbicides shall be conducted in accordance with the California Red-Legged Frog Injunction (Center For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Case No.: 02-1580-JSW) in known or potential California red-legged frog habitat specifically by: not applying specified pesticides within 15 feet of aquatic features (including areas that are wet at time of spraying or areas that are dry at time of spraying but subsequently might be wet during the next winter season); utilizing only spot-spraying techniques and equipment by a certified applicator or person working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator; and not spraying during precipitation or if precipitation is forecast to occur within 24 hours before or after the proposed application. Preserves in which these precautions must be undertaken are: Miramontes Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, El Corte de Madera, La Honda Creek, Picchetti Ranch, Russian Ridge, Sierra Azul, Tunitas Creek, Skyline Ridge, Rancho San Antonio, Monte Bello and Coal Creek OSPs and Toto Ranch. 21 A District-approved biologist shall survey all selected treatment sites prior to work to determine site conditions and develop any necessary site- specific measures. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years. Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. Site inspections shall evaluate existing conditions at a given treatment site including the presence, population size, growth stage, and percent cover of target weeds and pests relative to native plant cover and the presence of special-status species and their habitat, or sensitive natural communities. In addition, worker environmental awareness training shall be conducted for all treatment field crews and contractors for special-status species and sensitive natural communities determined to have the potential to occur on the treatment site by a District-approved biologist. The education training shall be conducted prior to starting work at the treatment site and upon the arrival of any new worker onto sites with the potential for special-status species or sensitive natural communities. The training shall consist of a brief review of life history, field identification, and habitat requirements for each special-status species, their known or probable locations in the vicinity of the treatment site, potential fines for violations, avoidance measures, and necessary actions if special-status species or sensitive natural communities are encountered. 22 Nesting Birds - For all IPM activities that could result in potential noise and other land disturbances that could affect nesting birds (e.g., tree removal, mowing during nesting season, mastication, brush removal on rangelands), treatment sites shall be surveyed to evaluate the potential for nesting birds. Tree removal will be limited, whenever feasible, based on the presence or absence of nesting birds. For all other treatments, if birds exhibiting nesting behavior are found within the treatment sites during the bird nesting season: March 15 – August 30 for smaller bird species such as passerines and February 15 - August 30 for raptors, impacts on nesting birds will be avoided by the establishment of appropriate buffers around active nests. The distance of the protective buffers surrounding each active nest site are: 500 feet for large raptors such as buteos, 250 feet for small raptors such as accipiters, and 250 feet for passerines. The size of the buffer may be adjusted by a District biologist in consultation with CDFW and USFWS depending on site specific conditions. Monitoring of the nest by a District biologist during and after treatment activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest. These areas can be subsequently treated after a District-approved biologist or designated biological monitor confirms that the young have fully fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents and have left the nest site. For IPM activities that clearly would not have adverse impacts to nesting birds (e.g. treatments in buildings and spot spraying with herbicides), no survey for nesting birds would be required. - 32 - | P a g e District BMPs for IPMP BMP ID# Best Management Practices 23 San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and Santa Cruz kangaroo rat – All District staff, volunteers, tenants, or contractors who will implement treatment actions shall receive training from a qualified biologist on the identification of dusky-footed woodrat, Santa Cruz kangaroo rat, and their nests. Generally, all San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Santa Cruz kangaroo rat, and their nests will be avoided and left undisturbed by proposed work activities. If a nest site will be affected, the District will consult with CDFW. Rodenticides, snap traps, and glue boards shall not be used in buildings within 100 feet of active San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests or Santa Cruz kangaroo rat nests; instead rodent control in these areas will be limited to non-lethal exclusion and relocation activities including relocation of nests if approved by CDFW. Tenants will contact the District for assistance in managing rat populations in buildings and under no circumstances will be allowed to use rodenticides. 24 Where appropriate, equipment modifications, mowing patterns, and buffer strips shall be incorporated into manual treatment methods to avoid disturbance of grassland wildlife. 25 Rare Plants – All selected treatment sites shall be surveyed prior to work to determine the potential presence of special-status plants. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years. Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. A 30-foot buffer shall be established from special-status plants. No application of herbicides shall be allowed within this buffer. Non-herbicide methods can be used within 30 feet of rare plants but they shall be designed to avoid damage to the rare plants (e.g., pulling). 26 Cultural Resources – District staff, volunteer crew leaders, and contractors implementing treatment activities shall receive training on the protection of sensitive archaeological, paleontological, or historic resources (e.g., projectile points, bowls, baskets, historic bottles, cans, trash deposits, or structures). In the event volunteers would be working in locations with potential cultural resources, staff shall provide instruction to protect and report any previously undiscovered cultural artifacts that might be uncovered during hand-digging activities. If archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered on a treatment site and the treatment method consists of physical disturbance of land surfaces (e.g., mowing, brushcutting, pulling, or digging), work shall avoid these areas or shall not commence until the significance of the find can be evaluated by a qualified archeologist. This measure is consistent with federal guidelines 36 CFR 800.13(a), which protects such resources in the event of unanticipated discovery. 27 Post-Treatment Monitoring – District staff shall monitor IPM activities within two months after herbicide treatment (except for routine minor maintenance activities which can be evaluated immediately after treatment) to determine if the target pest or weeds were effectively controlled with minimum effect to the environment and non-target organisms. Future treatment methods in the same season or future years shall be designed to respond to changes in site conditions. 28 Erosion Control and Revegetation - For sites with loose or unstable soils, steep slopes (greater than 30 percent), where a large percentage of the groundcover will be removed, or near aquatic features that could be adversely affected by an influx of sediment, erosion control measures shall be implemented after treatment. These measures could consist of the application of forest duff or mulches, straw bales, straw wattles, other erosion control material, seeding, or planting of appropriate native plant species to control erosion, restore natural areas, and prevent the spread or reestablishment of weeds. Prior to the start of the winter storm season, these sites shall be inspected to confirm that erosion control techniques are still effective. 29 Operation of noise-generating equipment (e.g., chainsaws, wood chippers, brush-cutters, pick-up trucks) shall abide by the time-of-day restrictions established by the applicable local jurisdiction (i.e., City and/or County) if such noise activities would be audible to receptors (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship) located in the applicable local jurisdiction. If the local, applicable jurisdiction does not have a noise ordinance or policy restricting the time-of-day when noise-generating activity can occur, then the noise-generating activity shall be limited to two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset, generally Monday through Friday. Additionally, if noise-generating activity would take place on a site that spans over multiple jurisdictions, then the most stringent noise restriction, as described in this BMP or in a local noise regulation, would apply. For IPM sites where the marbled murrelet has the potential to nest, as identified in the District’s 2014 maps (see attachment) if noise- generating activities would occur during its breeding season (March 24 to September 15), the IPM activities would be subject to the noise requirements listed in the most current in the CDFW RMA issued to the District (see attachment). 30 All motorized equipment shall be shut down when not in use. Idling of equipment and off-highway vehicles will be limited to 5 minutes. 31 Grazing Animals – Animals that have grazed in areas treated with Milestone herbicide will be moved to an untreated holding area for three days prior to being transferred to an area containing plant species of concern. R-17-51 Meeting 17-10 April 26, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Approval of Rangeland Management Plan for October Farm GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the staff report. 2. Approve the Rangeland Management Plan for the October Farm portion of the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. 3. Adopt an Amendment to the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the October Farm portion of the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to incorporate the Rangeland Management Plan. SUMMARY On March 14, 2012 (R-12-30), the Board approved the purchase of the October Farm portion of the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (“October Farm”) and associated Preliminary Use and Management Plan (“PUMP”). Per the PUMP, the District has continued grazing under a year-to-year interim grazing lease with a tenant while a comprehensive Rangeland Management Plan (“Plan”) was being developed. In 2016 Sage and Associates, Inc., a California Certified Rangeland Manager (CRM), completed a comprehensive plan for October Farm and, if the Plan is approved by the Board, the District will develop a long-term conservation grazing lease for October Farm and continue the use of livestock grazing for natural resource and vegetation management. DISCUSSION The District acquired the 270-acre October Farm in 2012 as an addition to the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Attachment 1). The property, located within the Coastal Annexation Area, included livestock grazing at the time of acquisition. Per the Coastside Service Plan, continuation of livestock grazing was required and the District entered into an interim grazing lease with an existing grazing tenant, Doug Edwards, under the General Manager’s authority. At the time of acquisition, the Board also adopted the PUMP for October Farm, which required: “Preparation of a Rangeland Management Plan in accordance with the District’s Coastside Service Plan and the District’s Grazing Management Policy. Present the R-17-51 Page 2 Rangeland Management Plan for review and approval by the District Board of Directors. Rent the grassland areas for cattle grazing on a short-term interim basis until Rangeland Management Plan and lease is developed for the property.” In accordance with the PUMP, the District hired Sage and Associates, Inc. in 2016 to develop a comprehensive Rangeland Management Plan (Plan) for October Farm (Attachment 2). Sage and Associates was selected through a competitive bid process in which they were the lowest priced responsive, responsible bidder. Staff presented the Plan to the San Mateo County Farm Bureau on April 3, 2016 at their regular meeting. The main recommendations from the Plan are summarized below: Stocking Rate: The Plan recommends seasonal rotational grazing on October Farm during the spring and early summer months with an estimated 186 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) equivalent to 36 cows for six months. Additionally, the Plan identifies that year-round rotational grazing is also acceptable, provided adequate stock water is available. Applying the same annual stocking rate of 186 AUMs, this would be equivalent to 18 cows year-round. Rangeland Infrastructure: October Farm was historically grazed with well-developed infrastructure in place and the Plan requires no immediate need for improvements. Perimeter fencing is in good repair and requires no replacement or additional sections to be installed. Interior fencing is a combination of natural barriers and wire fencing in good repair. Additional fencing may be constructed to protect natural resources if unacceptable damage is observed per the District’s Natura Resource Policies. Stock water is provided by a groundwater well powered by a windmill and stored in a 5,000- gallon tank. Water is distributed to three (3) troughs throughout the upland grassland areas. Corrals are located adjacent to Lobitos Road and are in good condition. Natural Resource Management: Grassland resources on the October Farm property are typical of the San Mateo coast, with the grasslands dominated primarily by non-native European grasses. The presence of invasive vegetation is a concern, including thistles and moderate to severe impacts from brush encroachment into the grasslands. Control of invasive vegetation is recommended, including coyote brush, to protect and enhance grassland habitat. The District and the current grazing tenant are working to control noxious vegetation on October Farm through the District’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. October Farm contains two (2) stock ponds, one seasonal pond in the grazing area and one perennial pond located on the other side of Lobitos Road in a portion of the preserve that is not accessible to livestock grazing. Both stock ponds have the potential to support rare aquatic wildlife species. Some rare wildlife species that have been identified within the grassland areas of the Preserve include burrowing owl and American badger, both of which use California ground squirrel burrows throughout the grassland areas. The grasslands provide quality forage for migratory birds. R-17-51 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT Using the District’s current AUM rate of $16.05 per AUM and an estimated annual stocking rate of 186 AUMs, annual revenue generated by the grazing lease will be approximately $2,985.00. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Board committee review was not required for this item. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of amending the District’s Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the October Farm portion of the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to allow the continuation of cattle grazing under specific prescriptions and rangeland management practices set forth in the Rangeland Management Plan (Plan) and the District’s future award of a long-term lease with a grazing tenant. Due to its location within the Coastside Protection Area, the project incorporates all of the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Final Environmental Impact (FEIR) mitigation measures that apply to agricultural land management within the Coastside Protection Area and is subject to the FEIR mitigation monitoring program. The Plan provides the District and the District’s grazing lessee(s) with guidance for management practices for soil and water conservation, pest, and erosion control for the 168-acre grassland and shrubland portions of the October Farm property that are used for conservation grazing land operations. Conservation management practices components include specific recommendations for: livestock grazing and rangeland management; livestock and wildlife water development; livestock and wildlife fencing maintenance; land management; roads and infrastructure maintenance; and wildlife, water quality and habitat management. No change of use would occur as a result of implementing this Plan since the current grazing practices on the property would continue. The Plan would facilitate the approval of a long-term lease for the grazing operations and would be included as an amendment to the District’s 2012 Preliminary Use and Management Plan, associated with the property acquisition. CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is categorically exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) under Article 19, Sections 15301, 15302, 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows: Section 15301 exempts operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. The proposed plan recommends maintenance of the existing roads for erosion control including placement of water bars, rip rap, and straw bales, when needed. The road and road infrastructure maintenance are covered activities under an R-17-51 Page 4 existing Routine Maintenance Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project incorporates the District’s approved Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program and Environmental Impact Report mitigation measures for invasive pest species management. The proposed plan also calls for maintenance of existing native plants by mowing. Under the proposed plan, there will be no expansion of use, and the property will be operated under a long-term lease. Section 15302 exempts construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. The proposed plan recommends installation of one new 5,000-gallon water tank, one new water trough, and a connecting line within the upland grasslands of an existing pasture. Section 15304 exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Section 15304(a) exempts grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard as delineated by the State Geologist. Section 15304(b) exempts new landscaping, and 15304(f) exempts minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. The proposed plan recommendation to install the new 5,000-gallon water tank, one new water trough, a connecting line, and minor fencing will involve minor grading, trenching, and backfilling. The proposed plan also calls for the reseeding of disturbed areas to prevent erosion. This work will not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees, and will not occur in a waterway, any wetland, an officially designated scenic area, or in an officially mapped area of severe geologic hazard. NEXT STEPS Pending Board approval of the General Manager’s recommendations, staff will implement the Rangeland Management Plan and develop a long-term grazing lease for management of October Farm. Attachments 1. Map 2. October Farm Grazing Management Plan Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Manager, Natural Resources Department Prepared by: Clayton Koopmann, Resource Management Specialist II Tunitas Creek Lobitos Creek P u risi m a C reek E ast F o r k T u n i t a s C r e ek Lobitos Creek Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District Location Map, POST (October Farm) Property August, 2011 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ P u r i s i m a _ C r e e k _ R e d w o o d s \ R a p l e y \ F M M P _ R a p l e y \ F M M P _ R a p l e y _ R e g i o n a l . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : a r o a Belmont San Carlos Half Moon Bay 0 10.5Miles (MROSD) Area ofDetail 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. Other Protected Open Spaceor Park Lands MROSD Preserves Private Property Other Public Agency Watershed Land Non MROSD Conservation or Agricultural Easement POST (October Farm) Property Tunitas CreekOpen Space Preserve Purisima Creek RedwoodsOpen Space Preserve S.M. CountyCommunityCollege Lobitos Creek Road Tunita s Cre ek Road Cabrillo Highway 1 1 V e r d e R o a d Pac i fic Oce a n Purisima Creek Rd Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 R-17-44 Meeting 17-10 April 26, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Review and Reaffirmation of the use of Rights of First Offer and Rights of First Refusal to purchase and preserve open space lands, and authorization of General Manager to initiate negotiations on specific properties. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Reaffirm interest in outstanding Rights of First Offer and Rights of First Refusal to preserve open space lands, and authorize the General Manager or General Manager’s designee to initiate negotiations upon notification of owners’ intent to sell certain properties. SUMMARY One of the land acquisition tools used by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) to purchase desired open space lands is to secure Rights of First Offer and Rights of First Refusal (Rights of Purchase, rights) from a land owner. This report provides a recent history on the use of Rights of Purchase; reviews properties where the District currently holds rights; asks the Board of Directors (Board) to reaffirm District interest in those properties; and authorize the General Manager to initiate negotiations when the District receives a notice of intent to sell. DISCUSSION When a property owner grants a Right of Purchase to the District, it provides the District the first chance to buy a property or match an offer received from an interested third party. The District’s use of these rights have been an effective tool to secure future opportunities to purchase open space lands as they become available for sale. A Right of First Offer obligates the property owner to offer a property for sale to the District before putting it on the open market. This right typically has an election-to-purchase timeline of 60 days. This timeline allows for the District and seller to obtain an independent appraisal to determine the fair market value of the property as part of the negotiation process. A Right of First Refusal allows the District the opportunity to match a purchase offer received from a bona fide third party buyer or decline to purchase. A Right of First Refusal has a shorter election-to-purchase timeline, typically 15 to 30 days. The District can request an extension, but the seller is not obligated to grant the request. Normally, when any property becomes available for purchase, the District’s Real Property Committee (RPC) has opportunity to review or tour the property and evaluate its value to the R-17-44 Page 2 District’s mission. The RPC then makes a recommendation to the full Board whether to proceed with the purchase. The typical process to seek approval to purchase through RPC and then the Board takes a minimum of 60 days from when an interested seller first contacts the District. In actuality, it may take longer if there is a need to complete an appraisal, conduct due diligence on site conditions, negotiate terms of purchase, and schedule property tours. The District tries to negotiate and secure both Rights of First Offer and Rights of First Refusal on properties of value to the District when possible and follows a Board approval process to purchase these rights. All of the District’s existing Rights of Purchase described below were previously approved by the Board as part of a past land purchase or transaction. When secured, these rights of purchase are usually recorded on title. Many years can elapse between when the District secures Rights of Purchase and when the opportunity to exercise those rights emerges. Securing either Rights of First Offer or Rights of First Refusal does not commit the District to purchase a property. Purchase requires the full Board’s approval at the actual time of offering. Since the District’s formation in 1972, the District has negotiated Rights of Purchase on many parcels. These have then led to the purchase of some significant properties or eliminated inholdings in various preserves. Currently, the District holds Rights of Purchase with varying terms on eleven (11) properties within or adjacent to seven (7) Open Space Preserves (OSP). RIGHTS OF PURCHASE Recent use of Rights of Purchase Since 2010, the District has exercised or waived its Rights of Purchase on four important open space properties identified below: 1. In 2010, the District exercised its Rights of First Refusal to purchase the 97.5-acre Silva property as an addition to Russian Ridge OSP (Report R-10-147). The Board concurrently approved an assignment of its purchase rights to Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), and entered into a Lease and Management Agreement with POST to manage the property while in POST ownership. These actions enabled the District time to secure a $500,000 Coastal Conservancy Grant, which the District applied to the subsequent purchase of the property from POST in 2011. This property provided for the construction of the Mindego parking area and trailhead, completed in 2014-15. 2. In 2011, the District waived its Rights of First Refusal to the 117.14-acre Hendrys Creek property in Sierra Azul OSP and allowed POST to purchase the property (Report R-11- 84). This gave the District time to coordinate a funding partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to purchase the property from POST in 2015. 3. In 2013, the District exercised its Rights of First Offer to purchase the 10.79-acre Lobner Trust property as an addition to Monte Bello OSP (Report R-13-19). This property facilitates completion of the Upper Stevens Creek Trail connection. 4. In 2015, the District exercised its Rights of First Offer to purchase the 38.97-acre Meyer/Connolly property along Mount Umunhum road as an addition to Sierra Azul OSP (Report R-13-132) to secure public rights to a portion of the road. R-17-44 Page 3 With the Lobner Trust and Meyer/Connolly properties, the District had very short timelines to exercise Rights of Purchase. The District had 21 days to exercise its Rights of First Offer in the midst of the December holiday season for the Lobner Trust property. The District had 10 days to exercise its Rights of First Refusal for the Meyer/Connolly property. In both cases, the District negotiated timeline extensions with the property owners. However, even with the extensions, there was insufficient time to bring these purchase opportunities first to the RPC. Reaffirm outstanding Rights of Purchase (see Exhibit 1) The table below identifies eleven (11) parcels, totaling 585 acres, in which District holds Rights of Purchase. In some instances, more than thirty years have elapsed since the District negotiated these rights. (The oldest rights date back to 1979 and the most recent rights were recorded in 2015.) Each of these properties retain their value to the District but have short election-to- purchase timelines in which the District can respond. Because of these timeline constraints, it is important that the Board review and reaffirm the District’s interest in these properties. Property Owner/Preserve Acres Board Report Date & # Right of 1st Offer Right of 1st Refusal Election-to- Purchase Timeline Gallaway, El Corte de Madera Creek OSP 1.7 5/23/2012 R-12-50 Right of 1st Offer Right of 1st Refusal 60 days 30 days Incline Trust (Rapley Ranch), Russian Ridge OSP 14 5/26/2004 R-05-130 Right of 1st Offer* Right of 1st Refusal * 30 days 15 days Struggle Mountain, Foothill OSP 8.53 6/13/1979 R-79-20 Right of 1st Refusal 21 days Cummings, Skyline Ridge OSP 16 1/10/2003 R-02-127 Right of 1st Offer Right of 1st Refusal 60 days 21 days Jenkins, Skyline Ridge OSP 53.6 6/10/1984 R-84-24 Right of 1st Offer Right of 1st Refusal 60 days 30 days Lehigh Quarry (2 parcels), Rancho San Antonio OSP 55 210 8/13/2014 R-14-98 Right of 1st Offer Right of 1st Refusal 60 days 60 days Consigny, Picchetti Ranch OSP 9.14 12/2/1980 R-80-23 Right of 1st Refusal 15 days Harris, Fremont Older OSP 1.03 R-88-55 7-13-1988 Right of 1st Refusal 21 days Stanton, Sierra Azul OSP 120.9 12/12/2008 R-08-134 Right of 1st Offer Right of 1st Refusal 60 days 21 days Balaban Trust, Sierra Azul OSP 95.4 12-28-2011 R-11-117 Right of 1st Offer 60 days *Unrecorded held by POST and assignable to the District Gallaway Property, El Corte de Madera Creek OSP. In 2012, a family member retained a 1.7-acre parcel and granted Rights of Purchase to the District when the District purchased the 58.2 Gallaway Property as an addition to El Corte de Madera Creek OSP. The parcel is located at the terminus of the upper access road between the Gallaway and the 30.78-acre Sempervirens Fund properties as an inholding to the Preserve (see Exhibit 2). R-17-44 Page 4 Incline Trust Property, Russian Ridge OSP. In 2004, the seller retained the 14-acre Incline Trust property and granted Rights of Purchase to POST when POST purchased the 151-acre Rapley Ranch property. The District subsequently purchased the Rapley Ranch property from POST in 2006 as an addition to Russian Ridge OSP. POST retained an unrecorded Right of First Offer and Right of First Refusal on the 14-acre property, assignable to the District. The 14-acre parcel is undeveloped. It is located along the entrance road to the former Rapley Ranch property and surrounded by the Preserve on three sides (see Exhibit 3). Struggle Mountain Property, Foothills OSP. In 1979, the District secured a Right of First Refusal on the 8.53-acre Struggle Mountain property. The property is located on Page Mill Road, adjacent to the Foothills OSP to the east and to the Los Trancos OSP to the south and west, across Page Mill Road. The property is improved with residential structures occupied by the Struggle Mountain community (see Exhibit 4). Cummings Property, Skyline Ridge OSP. In 2003, the seller retained the 16-acre Cummings property as an inholding in Skyline Ridge OSP and granted Rights of Purchase to the District as part of the District’s 768-acre Big Dipper Ranch purchase. The 16-acre inholding contains a residence and out buildings (see Exhibit 5). Jenkins Property, Skyline Ridge OSP. In 1984, the seller retained the 53.6-acre Jenkins property and granted Rights of Purchase to the District when the District purchased the 54-acre Jenkins addition to Skyline Ridge OSP. The property includes a residence and garage with an apartment. It also contains densely wooded forest (redwoods and Douglas fir) and the confluence of Peters and Lambert Creeks, potential spawning habitat for steelhead trout and coho salmon (see Exhibit 5). Lehigh Quarry Properties, Rancho San Antonio OSP. The District holds Rights of Purchase on two properties owned by Lehigh Quarry, totaling 265 acres. A 210-acre parcel provides a scenic buffer between the quarry and the PG&E trail in Rancho San Antonio OSP. A 55-acre parcel provides a scenic backdrop to the eastern portion of the PG&E trail, the Preserve, and Rancho San Antonio County Park. In 2014, the District secured Rights of Purchase as part of an agreement to accept two trail easements, two rights of purchase, and a conditional grant deed conveyance in exchange for dismissal of appeal in Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District v. County of Santa Clara et al, Court of Appeal Case No. H040839 (Lehigh EIR challenge) (see Exhibit 6). Consigny Property, Picchetti Ranch OSP. In 1980, the District recorded a Restriction Agreement and a Right of First Refusal covering 50 acres of the Consigney Property, as part of the District’s purchase of 97 acres of the total 147-acre Consigny holding. In 1982, the District waived its Right of First Refusal over a portion of the 50 acres so that POST could purchase a 40-acre portion. POST later transferred the 40-acre portion to Santa Clara County Parks. Later, Cal Fire acquired a small portion of the property. The District’s Right of First Refusal is still effective on the remaining 9.14-acre Consigny property. The 9.14-acre property is located adjacent to Lower Stevens Creek County Park and improved with a residence. The District’s Restriction Agreement also includes development and density limitations, advisory design review, and a public trail easement on the owner’s remaining land (see Exhibit 7). Harris Property, Fremont Older OSP. In 1988, the District secured a Right of First Refusal on the 1.03-acre Harris Property as an inholding to the Preserve when the District purchased an R-17-44 Page 5 adjoining vacant 1.22-acre parcel. The Harris property, located at the end of Prospect Road and surrounded by the Preserve, contains a modest single-family residence and garage. Development would may be very visible if the property was improved with a large residence in the future. The property may also be desirable to the District as a future employee residence (see Exhibit 7). Stanton Property, Sierra Azul OSP. In 2008, the District secured Right of Purchase on 120.9- acres of the Stanton Property as part of an agreement to purchase an undivided half interest in the adjacent 96-acre Stanton property. The 120.9-acre property is located off Reynolds Road and surrounded by the Rancho de Guadalupe area of Sierra Azul OSP on all sides. There are two private improved properties to the west and one improved private property to the north. The property is improved with two trailer residences and several unoccupied structures. The property provides a connection to the “New Hagan” meadow area of the Preserve (see Exhibit 8). Balaban Property, Sierra Azul OSP. In 2011, the District secured a Right of First Offer on the 95.4-acre Balaban property as part of an agreement to purchase 83 nearby acres from the property owner. The 95.4-acre Balaban property is a large inholding in the Alamitos Creek watershed area of Sierra Azul OSP. The property contains a trailer residence and a recreational pond on a ridgeline visible from Mt. Umunhum Road (see Exhibit 9). In addition, the District holds Rights of Purchase a remaining Term Interest in two (2) properties sold to private parties. Term Interest Owner/ Preserve Acres Date Board Report Right of 1st Offer Right of 1st Refusal Election-to- Purchase Timeline Guenther, Skyline Ridge OSP 10 12/17/1997 R-97-99 &109 Right of 1st Refusal 30 days Thornton-Simone (prior Anderson-Niswander), Long Ridge OSP 13.9 9/27/2000 R-00-120 3/24/2015 R-15-04 Right of 1st Refusal Right of 1st Refusal 30 days 60 days Guenther Term Interest, Skyline Ridge OSP. In 1997, the District sold a 50-year Term Interest in a 10-acre property off Alpine Road to Jake and Tamara Guenther. The property contains a residence, pool and pool house, cabin, and outbuildings. The Term Interest has 30 years remaining. The property is subject to reserved patrol and trail easements, design and review approval of future improvements, and a Right of First Refusal with a 30-day time to respond to any future private party purchase offers. At the end of the remaining Term Interest, fee title to the property reverts to District ownership (see Exhibit 5). Thornton-Simone Term Interest, Long Ridge OSP. In 2000, the District sold a 40-year Term Interest in a 13.9-acre property along Portola Heights Road to Tom Anderson and Sherry Niswander. The property contains a residence, in-law unit, and outbuildings. The property is subject to a reserved open space and trail easement as the Long Ridge Trail circles a portion of the property. The property is also subject to design and review of future improvements and a Right of First Refusal. In 2015, Anderson-Niswander sold the remaining 26 years of their Term Interest to Thornton-Simone. The District declined to exercise its Right of First Refusal to allow the sale of the Term Interest. As part of this sale transaction, the District negotiated an amendment to the original agreement, increasing the District’s Right of Refusal election-to- R-17-44 Page 6 purchase from 30 to 60 days to allow the District more time to respond to any future private party purchase offers. The Term Interest has 24 years remaining. At the end of the remaining Term Interest, fee title to the property reverts to District ownership (see Exhibit 5). Authorization of General Manager to Exercise Rights of Purchase Properties with older rights to purchase typically have election-to-purchase timelines of less than 30 days. Six (6) properties have short election timelines: Incline Trust, Struggle Mountain, Cummings, Consigny, Harris, and Stanton. It is not certain that the District would be able to negotiate extension of election-to-purchase terms, and as explained previously, the established terms may not provide sufficient time to bring these purchase opportunities to the RPC for individual consideration. If the Board reaffirms interest in these properties, the General Manager recommends that the Board authorize the initiation of negotiations directly when the District receives a notice of intent to sell, and inform the Board of negotiations at the earliest possible date (bi-weekly report or FYI at next Board meeting) if election-to-purchase timeline terms cannot beextended by agreement with the landowner. The process to approve [SS1]purchase of any one these properties will still require the full Board of Directors to approve the purchase. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The District held a RPC meeting on February 28, 2017 to review interest in the properties in which the District holds Rights of Purchase. The District distributed notice of the meeting to property owners. No property owners or members of the public attended. Two members of the RPC attended. Staff gave a presentation of the subject properties and the terms of the Rights of Purchase. The RPC approved recommending the District’s reaffirmed interest in all the subject properties, and future purchase of these properties need not come before the RPC for again review, but may go instead directly to the full Board for consideration of purchase, by a 2-0 vote. PUBLIC NOTICE The property owners subject to Right of Purchase by the District were notified of this meeting. 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). NEXT STEPS Following approval, the Real Property staff will monitor the status of properties with Rights of Purchase. If the District cannot renegotiate the terms of the election-to-purchase time limits and bring the proposed purchases back to the PRC, the General Manager will notify the Board. The General Manager or his or her designee will initiate negotiations on these properties. The General Manager will bring any proposed purchase to the full Board of Directors for consideration and approval. R-17-44 Page 7 Attachments 1. Exhibit 1: Regional Map of Properties with Rights to Purchase 2. Exhibit 2: Gallaway Property, El Corte de Madera OSP 3. Exhibit 3: Incline Trust Property, Russian Ridge OSP 4. Exhibit 4: Struggle Mountain Property, Foothills OSP 5. Exhibit 5: Cummings and Jenkins Properties, Skyline Ridge OSP / Guenther Term Interest, Skyline Ridge OSP / Thornton-Simone Term Interest, Long Ridge OSP 6. Exhibit 6: Lehigh Quarry Properties, Rancho San Antonio OSP 7. Exhibit 7: Consigny Property, Picchetti Ranch OSP / Harris Property, Fremont Older OSP 8. Exhibit 8: Stanton Property, Sierra Azul OSP 9. Exhibit 9: Balaban Property, Sierra Azul OSP Responsible Department Head: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Prepared by: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Elish Ryan, Real Property Planner III Graphics Prepared by: Torie Robinson, GIS Intern 2 4 7 10 1 65 12 9 3 11 8 S A N B O R N C O U N T Y P A R K A L M A D E N Q U I C K S I L V E R P A R K K A T Z C A S T L E R O C K S T A T E P A R K C A S C A D E R A N C H U P P E R S T E V E N S C R E E K C O U N T Y P A R K B U T A N O FA R M S P O R T O L A R E D W O O D S S T A T E P A R K A Ñ O N U E V O S T A T E PA R K F O O T H I L L S P A R K P E S C A D E R O C R E E K PA R K B I G B A S I N R E D W O O D S S T A T E P A R K M E M O R I A L P A R K B L M L O M P I C O B U TA N O S TAT E PA R K W U N D E R L I C H P A R K J A S P E R R I D G E R E S E R V E K R VAV I C A A L P I N E R A N C H S A M M C D O N A L D P A R K B E A R C R E E K R E D W O O D S C O A L C R E E K E L C O R T E D E M A D E R A C R E E K E L S E R E N O F E LT O N S TA T I O N F O O T H I L L S F R E M O N T O L D E R L A H O N D A C R E E K L O N G R I D G E L O S T R A N C O S M O N T E B E L L O P I C C H E T T I R A N C H P U R I S I M A C R E E K R E D W O O D S R A N C H O S A N A N T O N I O R U S S I A N R I D G E S A R A T O G A G A P S I E R R A A Z U L S K Y L I N E R I D G E S T . J O S E P H 'S H I L L T E A G U E H I L L T H O R N E W O O D T U N I T A S C R E E K W I N D Y H I L L Ã9 Ã1 Ã680 Ã880 Ã17 Ã101 Ã84 Ã280 Ã35 M id p e ni n su la Reg i on a l Op e n S p a c e D i st r ic t (MRO S D) Mar ch 2 0 1 7 E x h i b i t 1 . P r o p e r t i e s w i t h D i s t r i c t R i g h t s o f P u r c ha s e Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\RegionWide_20161208_V2.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 3.51.75 MilesI While the Distric t strives to use the best av ail able digital data, these data do not represent a legal su r vey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic f eatures. Oth er P ro t ec ted Ope n S pa ce or P ar k La nd s MR O SD P r es er ves Su b jec t P r o per ty 4 Gu e nt he r (Ter m In te re s t) 7 Th o r nt on -S im o n e (Ter m In te re s t) Pr op er t y Li s t 3 St ru g gl e Mo u n tai n 2 In cl in e Tr u s t 8 Leh igh Qu a rr y 12 B al ab an 9 Co ns ig n y 11 St an to n 10 H ar r is 1 Ga l l aw ay 5 Cu m m in gs 6 J enk in s AccessRoad 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 P U R I S I M A C R E E K R E D W O O D S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E T U N I T A S C R E E K O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E StarHillR oad T u n i t a s C r e e k R d Mitc h e l C r e e k T u n it a s C r e e k E l C o r t e d e M a d e r a C r e e k 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) Fe bru a r y 2 01 7 E x h i b i t 2 . G a l l a w a y P r o p e r t y (E l C o r t e d e M a d e r a O S P ) Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\Gallaway_20161208.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 0.20.1 MilesI 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. Ã1 Ã35-92 Ã92 Ã101 Ã280 Ã84 Ã35 Half Moon Bay Redwood City Area of Detail Gallaway APN 081-100-050 1.7 Acres Pr iv at e P r o per ty MR O S D P re s er ves G al l aw a y P u r c h as e (20 1 2 ) Se m pe r vi re n s Fu nd Pu rc h as e (2 0 12 ) Pr iv at e P r o per ty Pr o pe r t y A c c es s R oa d N a t i v e S o n s R d. Semper virens Fund Purchase (2012) Gallaway Purchase (2012) Su b jec t Pr o p er ty R a pley Ra n c h R o a d A lpine Road CA State Route 35 Ã35 C O A L 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 W I N D Y H I L L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E C orte M a d e r a C r e e k L a n g l e y C r e e k Woodruf f C r e e k R a p l e y C r e e k Mindego Cree k W o o d hams C r e e k C oal Creek 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) Fe bru a r y 2 01 7 E x h i b i t 3 . I n c l i n e Tr u s t P r o p e r t y (R u s s i a n R i d g e O S P ) Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\InclineTrust_20170125.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 2,1001,050 FeetI 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. Ã9 Ã101 Ã84 Ã280 Ã35 Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Area of Detail A U D U B O N S O C I E T Y Pr iv at e P r o per ty MR O S D P re s er ves In cline Trust APN 078-210-360 14 Acres Lan d Tr u s t Pr o pe r t y A c c es s R oa d R ap l ey R an c h P u r c h as e (20 0 6 ) A c c e s s R o a d Rapley Ranch Purchase (2006) Su b jec t Pr o p er ty Page Mill R oa d F O O T H I L L S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E L O S T R A N C O S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E M O N T E B E L L O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E W e s t F o r k A d o b e C r e e k L o s T r a n c o s C r e e k 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) Fe bru a r y 2 01 7 E x h i b i t 4 . S t r u g g l e M o u n t a i n P r o p e r t y (L o s Tr a n c o s O S P ) Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\StruggleMtn_20161208.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 0.20.1 MilesI 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. Ã9 Ã101 Ã84 Ã280 Ã35 Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Area of Detail F O O T H I L L S P A R K (C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O ) C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O H I D D E N V I L L A Ot he r P r o te c ted Lan d s MR O S D P re s er ves No n -M R OS D E a s m en t o v er P ri vat e La n d MR O S D E as e m en t o ve r Ot he r P r o te c ted La nd Strugg le Mountain APN 351-05-055 8.5 Acres MR O S D E as e m en t o ve r Lan d Tru s t St r u gg l e M o u n tai n P u r c h as e (19 7 9 )Pr iv at e P r o per ty Strugg le Mountain Purchase (1979) Su b jec t Pr o p er ty A c c e s s R o a d A c c e s s Road Mindego Hil l Trail Po r t o l a H ts R d Long RidgeRoad D ia blo Way L O N G R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E M O N T E B E L L O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V ERUSSIAN R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S K Y L I N E R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E Port o la Stat e P a rk Rd C A State Ro ute 35 A l p i n e Road Ã35 H o r s e s h o e L a k e A l p i n e P o n d P e t e r s C r e ek L a m b e r t C r e e k M id p e ni n su la Reg i on a l Op e n S p a c e D i st r ic t (MRO S D) Mar ch 2 0 1 7 E x h i b i t 5 . C u m m i n g s , J e n k i n s , G u e n t h e r, T h o r n t o n -S i m o n e P r o p e r t i e s (S k y l i n e R i d g e & L o n g R i d g e O S P ) Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\Cummings&Jenkins_20161208.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 0.350.175 MilesI While the Distric t strives to use the best av ail able digital data, these data do not represent a legal su r vey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic f eatures. Sunnyvale Ã9 Ã17 Ã101 Ã84 Ã280 Ã35 Mountain View Cupertino Area of Detail P O R T O L A R E D W O O D S S T A T E P A R K P E S C A D E R O S T A T E P A R K Cummings APN 080-380-060 16.0 Acres Jenkins APN 080-390-130 53.6 Acres Guenther APN 080-282-080 10.0 Acres Thor nton-Simone (A nderson-Niswander) APN 080-410-270 13.9 Acres Big Dipper Purchase (2003)Jenkins Purchase (1984) MR O SD P r es er ves Pr iv ate P r o per ty Su b jec t P r o per ty Oth er P ro t ec ted Lan ds MR O SD E as e m en t o ver La nd Tru st Pa r t ial M ROS D Ow ne rs hip MR O SD Co n ser v at io n or A gr ic u l tu r e E as em en t B ig D ip per P u rc h ase (2 0 0 3) Jenk in s Pu rc h ase (1 9 8 4) Pr o pe r ty Ac c ess Ro a d M O N T E B E L L O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E R A N C H O S A N A N T O N I O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E Stevens C r e e k Adobe Creek B a y C r e ek G o l d M i n e C r e e k Pe r m a n e nte C r e e k Indian Cabin C reek Ã280 Mora D r i v e M a gdale n a Ave M o r a Trail Cristo R e y Drive 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) Fe bru a r y 2 01 7 E x h i b i t 6 . L eh i g h Q u a r r y P r o p e r t i e s (R a n c h o S a n A n t o n i o O S P ) Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\Lehigh_20161208.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 0.50.25 MilesI 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. Sunnyvale Ã9 Ã101 Ã84 Ã35 Ã280 Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Area of Detail Lehigh Quarr y APN 351-10-037 55 Acres (Portion) Ot he r P r o te c ted Lan d s Pr iv at e P r o per ty MR O S D P re s er ves MR O S D E as e m en t o ve r Pr i vat e La nd MR O S D Mg t. A g re em e nt ov er Ot h er P ro t ec te d La n d MR O S D E as e m en t o ve r Lan d Tru s t Lehigh Quarr y APN 351-09-023 APN 351-09-025 210 Acres (Por tion ) Su b jec t Pr o p er ty PG&E Tr ail F R E M O N T O L D E R O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V EPICCHETTI R A N C H O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S t e v e n s C r e e k R e s e r v o i r Stevens Creek Prospec t C r e e k Swiss Creek R e g n art C r e e k R e g n a rt R o a d Mont e b e lloRoad P r ospect Roa d M t. E d e n R d . S t e v e n s C a n y o n R 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) Fe bru a r y 2 01 7 Ex hi b i t 7 . C o n s i g ny P r o p er t y (P i cc h et t i R a nc h O S P ) a n d H a r r i s P r o p e r t y (Fr e m o nt Ol d er O S P ) Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\Consigny_20161208.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 0.350.175 MilesI 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. Sunnyvale Ã9 Ã101 Ã84 Ã35 Ã280 Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Area of Detail S T E V E N S C R E E K C O U N T Y P A R K Consigny APN 351-16-027 9.14 A cres Ot he r P r o te c ted Lan d s Pr iv at e P r o per ty MR O S D P re s er ves No n -M R OS D E a s em e nt o ver M R O SD P r es e r ve MR O S D E as e m en t o ve r Pr i vat e La nd Co ns ign y Pu rc h as e (1 9 80 ) Pr o pe r t y A c c es s R oa d Harris APN 366-29-023 1.03 A cres Access R o a d Consigny Purchase (1980) Su b jec t Pr o p er ty Wa te rs he d La nd Reyn o l ds R o a d C h e r r y S p r i n g s P o n d G u a d a l u p e R e s e r v o i r S I E R R A A Z U L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E R i n c o n C r e e k Los Ca pit a ncillos C r e e k Guadalupe Creek H i c k s Rd 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) Fe bru a r y 2 01 7 E x h i b i t 8 . S t a n t o n P r o p e r t y (S i e r r a A z u l O S P ) Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\Stanton_20161208.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 0.50.25 MilesI 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. San Jose Ã9 Ã35 Ã17 Cupertino Area of Detail A L M A D E N Q U I C K S I L V E R P A R K Ot he r P r o te c ted Lan d s Pr iv at e P r o per ty MR O S D P re s er ves No n -M R OS D E a s m en t o v er MR OS D MR O S D E as e m en t o ve r Ot he r P r o te c ted La nd Stanton APN 575-07-010 120.9 Acres Pa r t ial M R O S D ow n er s h ip New H agen Meadows Pr o pe r t y A c c es s R oa d Su b jec t Pr o p er ty St an to n P u r ch a s e (2 0 0 8) (1/2 I nt er e s t) Stanton Purchase (2008) (1/2 Interest) H e r b e r t C r e e k A l a m it o s C re e k A l m a d e n R e s e r v o i r S I E R R A A Z U L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E B a l d Mountain Trail A l amit o s R o a d W o o d Ro ad TrailWoodsTrail Barlow R o ad M t .U m u nhum R o a d A l a m i t o s Ro a d Hicks Rd 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) Fe bru a r y 2 01 7 E x h i b i t 9 . B a l a b a n P r o p e r t y (S i e r r a A zu l O S P ) Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\RealProperty\RightOfFirstRefusalProperties\Balaban_20161208.mxd Created By: trobinson 0 0.50.25 MilesI 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. San Jose Ã9 Ã35 Ã101 Ã17 Cupertino Area of Detail A L M A D E N Q U I C K S I L V E R P A R K R A N C H O C A Ñ A D A D E L O R O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E Balaban APN 562-22-039 95.4 A cres Ot he r P r o te c ted Lan d s Pr iv at e P r o per ty No n -M R OS D E a s em e nt o ver M R O SD P r es e r ve MR O S D E as e m en t o ve r Ot he r P r o te c ted La nd B al ab an P u r c ha s e (2 0 1 1)MR O S D P re s er ves Pr o pe r t y A c c es s R oa d Balaban Purchase (2011) Su b jec t Pr o p er ty DATE: April 26, 2017 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Joshua Hugg, Legislative/External Affairs Specialist THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: General Manager Legislative Positions Update to Board _____________________________________________________________________________ Background: Board Policy 1.11 titled “Positions on Ballot Measures and Legislative Advocacy,” Section 2(b), provides the General Manager the ability to take position on pending legislation in time-sensitive situations. b. When time is so short that neither the full Board nor LFPAC can be convened to consider positions to support or oppose local, state or federal legislation, the General Manager is authorized to take a position on behalf of the District if the legislation: i. Is related to the District’s mission; AND ii. Would directly impact the District’s business, such as project delivery, operations, finances, legal authority, or other District responsibilities; AND iii. The position being taken is consistent/inconsistent with existing District policy, past action, or District Strategic Plan; OR iv. The legislation carries other considerations that make it contrary to the District’s interests. In such instances, the General Manager or designee shall report to the Board any actions taken to support or oppose the legislation at or before the next Board meeting. Discussion: On behalf of the District, the General Manager has taken the following time-sensitive actions: 1. AB 898 (Frazier) - Property taxation: revenue allocations: East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. This bill, for the 2018–19 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, would require the auditor of the County of Contra Costa to allocate those ad valorem property tax revenues that would otherwise be allocated to the county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund from the East Bay Regional Park District, if the East Bay Regional Park District was not a multicounty special district, to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. The bill would limit the amount allocated to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District pursuant to these provisions to $10,500,000 per fiscal year. Action: At the behest of EBRPD, Midpen has taken an OPPOSE position and communicated it to the Assembly Local Government Committee (4/12/17) Page 2 of 3 2. AB 907 (Garcia) - Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement. This bill would establish the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement in the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development for specified purposes, including promoting active healthy lifestyles and improving the quality of life for all Californians, and would require the director of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to administer the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement. The bill would require the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement to create an advisory group to offer advice, expertise, support, and service to it, without compensation. Action: At the behest of CPRS, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee as part of a coalition of parks and open space organizations. (3/22/17) 3. AB 1608 (Kalra): Vibrant landscapes for climate, people, and multiple benefits. This bill would require the Department of Conservation to develop the Vibrant Landscape Program to assist eligible applicants in the development and implementation of county and regional plans to, among other things, integrate the conservation and management of natural and working lands with other sectors to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and achieve other public and environmental benefits. The bill would require the department, in collaboration with the Strategic Growth Council and the State Air Resources Board, to develop guidelines and criteria for the program. Action: At the behest of bill sponsor, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it via group sign-on letter to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. (3/28/17) 4. AB 1630 (Bloom): California Transportation Plan: wildlife movement and barriers to passage. This bill would authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Department of Transportation to pursue development of a programmatic environmental review process with appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies for wildlife connectivity-related transportation infrastructure. Action: At the behest of the statewide Wildlife Corridor Working Group, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee as part of a coalition of parks and open space organizations. (3/22/17) 5. SB 287 (Dodd): Habitat restoration: invasive species: Phytophthora pathogens. This bill would require the department, on or before December 31, 2019, to adopt regulations to minimize the risk of Phytophthora pathogens in plant materials used for habitat restoration projects authorized, funded, or required by the state. Action: At the behest of the Phytophthoras in Native Habitats working group, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it Senator Dodd, author of the bill. (3/7/17) 6. SB-424 (Allen): The California Regional Environmental Education Community Network. This bill would establish the California Regional Environmental Education Community Network under the direction and control of a 5-member governing board appointed, as specified, for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of high quality environmental literacy in California public schools, as specified. The bill would appropriate $4,500,000 from the General Fund to the Superintendent who shall apportion these funds to the fiscal agent for purposes of the California Regional Environmental Education Community Network. Page 3 of 3 Action: At the behest of environmental literacy organization Ten Strands, Midpen took a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the Senate Education Committee. (4/7/17) 7. SB 496 (Cannella) - Construction contracts: indemnity. This bill would require special districts and other local agencies to defend private engineers and architects against lawsuits related to their work. Action: At the behest of the California Special District Association (CSDA), Midpen has taken an OPPOSE position and communicated this to CSDA as part of a group sign-on letter they have assembled. (4/11/17) 8. SB 519 (Beall) Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Santa Clara Valley Water District Act authorizes the district to prevent contamination, pollution, or otherwise rendering unfit for beneficial use the surface or subsurface water used or useful in the district, and to commence, maintain, and defend actions and proceedings to prevent interference with the waters that may endanger or damage the inhabitants, lands, or use of water in, or flowing into, the district. This bill would specify that the district has the authority to engage in acts the board of the district deems appropriate and beneficial to reduce impacts on the waters from activity in and around waterways in the district, as specified. Action: At the behest of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to bill author Senator Beall. (3/29/17) 9. SCR 23 (Monning): California Wildlife Day. This measure would proclaim the Spring Equinox of every year as California Wildlife Day. Action: At the behest of bill author, Senator Monning, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the bill author. (2/28/17) From:Jennifer Woodworth Subject:Items for 4/26/17 Board meeting Date:Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:42:19 AM Attachments:20170426_FYI_GMLegPositionsUpdate.pdf Good morning, Please find the response Director Cyr’s question below submitted regarding tonight’s agenda items. Additionally, I have attached a copy of a memo regarding positions taken by the General Manager in time-sensitive situations on pending legislation. I will copies of both on the dais at tonight’s meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jen Claims Question: $450.00 for a press release? Leigh Ann Gessner from Confluence Communications helped with drafting, editing, and revising the Mount Umunhum Grand Opening press release for staff distribution via email and on the website. Once the opening date was decided on by general management, we knew a formal press release with key messages needed to be drafted quickly, so we looped in Leigh Ann whom we have a contract with for writing and consulting projects when needed. Total time spent and billed was 5 hours. 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. DATE: April 26, 2017 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Joshua Hugg, Legislative/External Affairs Specialist THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: General Manager Legislative Positions Update to Board _____________________________________________________________________________ Background: Board Policy 1.11 titled “Positions on Ballot Measures and Legislative Advocacy,” Section 2(b), provides the General Manager the ability to take position on pending legislation in time-sensitive situations. b. When time is so short that neither the full Board nor LFPAC can be convened to consider positions to support or oppose local, state or federal legislation, the General Manager is authorized to take a position on behalf of the District if the legislation: i. Is related to the District’s mission; AND ii. Would directly impact the District’s business, such as project delivery, operations, finances, legal authority, or other District responsibilities; AND iii. The position being taken is consistent/inconsistent with existing District policy, past action, or District Strategic Plan; OR iv. The legislation carries other considerations that make it contrary to the District’s interests. In such instances, the General Manager or designee shall report to the Board any actions taken to support or oppose the legislation at or before the next Board meeting. Discussion: On behalf of the District, the General Manager has taken the following time-sensitive actions: 1. AB 898 (Frazier) - Property taxation: revenue allocations: East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. This bill, for the 2018–19 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, would require the auditor of the County of Contra Costa to allocate those ad valorem property tax revenues that would otherwise be allocated to the county’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund from the East Bay Regional Park District, if the East Bay Regional Park District was not a multicounty special district, to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. The bill would limit the amount allocated to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District pursuant to these provisions to $10,500,000 per fiscal year. Action: At the behest of EBRPD, Midpen has taken an OPPOSE position and communicated it to the Assembly Local Government Committee (4/12/17) Page 2 of 3 2. AB 907 (Garcia) - Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement. This bill would establish the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement in the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development for specified purposes, including promoting active healthy lifestyles and improving the quality of life for all Californians, and would require the director of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to administer the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement. The bill would require the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement to create an advisory group to offer advice, expertise, support, and service to it, without compensation. Action: At the behest of CPRS, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee as part of a coalition of parks and open space organizations. (3/22/17) 3. AB 1608 (Kalra): Vibrant landscapes for climate, people, and multiple benefits. This bill would require the Department of Conservation to develop the Vibrant Landscape Program to assist eligible applicants in the development and implementation of county and regional plans to, among other things, integrate the conservation and management of natural and working lands with other sectors to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and achieve other public and environmental benefits. The bill would require the department, in collaboration with the Strategic Growth Council and the State Air Resources Board, to develop guidelines and criteria for the program. Action: At the behest of bill sponsor, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it via group sign-on letter to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. (3/28/17) 4. AB 1630 (Bloom): California Transportation Plan: wildlife movement and barriers to passage. This bill would authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Department of Transportation to pursue development of a programmatic environmental review process with appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies for wildlife connectivity-related transportation infrastructure. Action: At the behest of the statewide Wildlife Corridor Working Group, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee as part of a coalition of parks and open space organizations. (3/22/17) 5. SB 287 (Dodd): Habitat restoration: invasive species: Phytophthora pathogens. This bill would require the department, on or before December 31, 2019, to adopt regulations to minimize the risk of Phytophthora pathogens in plant materials used for habitat restoration projects authorized, funded, or required by the state. Action: At the behest of the Phytophthoras in Native Habitats working group, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it Senator Dodd, author of the bill. (3/7/17) 6. SB-424 (Allen): The California Regional Environmental Education Community Network. This bill would establish the California Regional Environmental Education Community Network under the direction and control of a 5-member governing board appointed, as specified, for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of high quality environmental literacy in California public schools, as specified. The bill would appropriate $4,500,000 from the General Fund to the Superintendent who shall apportion these funds to the fiscal agent for purposes of the California Regional Environmental Education Community Network. Page 3 of 3 Action: At the behest of environmental literacy organization Ten Strands, Midpen took a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the Senate Education Committee. (4/7/17) 7. SB 496 (Cannella) - Construction contracts: indemnity. This bill would require special districts and other local agencies to defend private engineers and architects against lawsuits related to their work. Action: At the behest of the California Special District Association (CSDA), Midpen has taken an OPPOSE position and communicated this to CSDA as part of a group sign-on letter they have assembled. (4/11/17) 8. SB 519 (Beall) Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Santa Clara Valley Water District Act authorizes the district to prevent contamination, pollution, or otherwise rendering unfit for beneficial use the surface or subsurface water used or useful in the district, and to commence, maintain, and defend actions and proceedings to prevent interference with the waters that may endanger or damage the inhabitants, lands, or use of water in, or flowing into, the district. This bill would specify that the district has the authority to engage in acts the board of the district deems appropriate and beneficial to reduce impacts on the waters from activity in and around waterways in the district, as specified. Action: At the behest of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to bill author Senator Beall. (3/29/17) 9. SCR 23 (Monning): California Wildlife Day. This measure would proclaim the Spring Equinox of every year as California Wildlife Day. Action: At the behest of bill author, Senator Monning, Midpen has taken a SUPPORT position and communicated it to the bill author. (2/28/17)