Submitted By: Beaches, Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Samantha Wylie, Beaches, Parks & Recreation Director
Subject:
title
REVIEW OF THE CITY'S INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY (POLICY NO. 801-5)
body
Summary:
As requested by the City Council at the June 2, 2026 meeting, the purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with an overview of the City's Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) Policy No. 801-5, originally adopted on September 4, 2018. This report provides historical context concerning the adoption of the policy, summarizes implementation over the past seven years, and reaffirms staff's interpretation of the policy's guiding principles for future application.
The policy establishes a comprehensive framework for vegetation and pest management on City-owned property by emphasizing prevention, environmental stewardship, and the use of cultural, biological, and mechanical control methods before pesticides are considered. Rather than prohibiting pesticides, the policy establishes a prioritized decision-making process that limits pesticide use to situations where non-chemical methods have proven ineffective or are otherwise insufficient to address public health, safety, regulatory, environmental, or operational concerns. Since adoption, the policy has guided maintenance activities throughout City parks, trails, open space, public facilities, landscaped medians, and other public properties while balancing environmental protection with the City's responsibility to maintain safe, functional, and aesthetically maintained public spaces.
Background:
The City Council first considered adoption of an IPM Policy on September 5, 2017. At that time, the City Council received comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Orange County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, and members of the public regarding the City's proposed approach to pesticide use. While many commenters encouraged reducing pesticide use, both the USFWS and City staff emphasized that an effective Integrated Pest Management program should continue to allow pesticides to remain available as one management tool only when alternative methods are ineffective or impractical.
Following nearly one year of additional evaluation and revisions, staff presented an updated policy in 2018 that clarified terminology, refined implementation procedures, and maintained flexibility to utilize pesticides when appropriate and as a last-resort effort. The City Council unanimously adopted Policy No. 801-5 (Attachment 1).
Discussion:
The IPM Policy was developed to establish consistent standards for vegetation and pest management throughout City-maintained properties while minimizing potential impacts to human health, wildlife, beneficial organisms, and the environment. The policy acknowledges maintaining public infrastructure requires balancing environmental stewardship with operational effectiveness. Accordingly, the policy establishes a hierarchy of management practices that prioritizes preventative and least-impact approaches before chemical treatments are considered.
IPM is based on using the least impactful method necessary to effectively manage pests; and rather than relying on a single treatment strategy, the policy establishes a hierarchy of management practices that progresses from prevention through targeted pesticide applications only when warranted. The policy is founded upon four primary principles.
1. Prevention: Preventative measures include proper irrigation practices, healthy soil management, mulch application, landscape design, removal of debris, elimination of pest habitat, and appropriate plant selection. By reducing conditions favorable to weeds and pests, the City minimizes long-term maintenance requirements while improving overall landscape health.
2. Monitoring: The policy requires continuous monitoring by maintenance staff and contractors to identify developing weed and pest issues before they become widespread.
3. Non-Chemical Control Measures: When pest issues are identified, the policy requires consideration of non-chemical methods whenever practical. These methods include:
a. Cultural practices (irrigation adjustments, soil improvements, aeration and compost applications);
b. Mechanical controls (hand weeding, mowing, trimming, weed whipping and physical barriers); and
c. Biological controls utilizing beneficial organisms and naturally occurring predators.
4. Targeted Chemical Controls: Only after preventative and non-chemical methods are determined to be ineffective does the policy allow pesticide use. When chemical treatment is warranted, the policy requires:
a. Consideration of organic products first;
b. Preference for lower-impact registered products;
c. Targeted applications;
d. Licensed applicators; and
e. Public notification and recordkeeping.
Consistent with the policy, pesticides remain an available maintenance tool only after Non-Chem Control Measures have proven ineffective or insufficient in achieving maintenance objectives. This balanced approach allows the City to responsibly protect public infrastructure, public health, environmental resources, and operational effectiveness while continuing to minimize pesticide use whenever practical.
Application to City Landscapes
The policy establishes different treatment standards based upon the type of City property being maintained. Athletic fields, playgrounds, and other high-use recreational facilities are subject to the most restrictive pesticide limitations due to their frequent public use. Since policy adoption, the City has not needed to use chemical controls/pesticides within these spaces.
Street medians, parkways, trails, open space, parking lots, and other public rights-of-way are managed under a different section of the policy. For these areas, the policy prioritizes prevention and non-chemical controls but allows targeted pesticide applications when those methods are ineffective or impractical.
This distinction recognizes the differing operational needs associated with maintaining transportation corridors, landscaped areas, invasive weed management, and public infrastructure while continuing to minimize environmental impacts through targeted applications. Consistent with the original intent of the policy, the use of targeted herbicides within street medians and rights-of-way remains an available maintenance tool when prevention and non-chemical methods are not sufficient to effectively maintain City infrastructure, landscaping, or operational service levels.
Considerations Identified by Staff:
Since its adoption in 2018, the IPM Policy has successfully guided maintenance practices throughout City-owned properties by promoting environmentally responsible maintenance while preserving the City's effectiveness in managing weeds and pests. The City has effectively reduced reliance on pesticide applications, improved monitoring and documentation of pest management activities, and utilized lower-impact products whenever feasible. Furthermore, the IPM Policy has supported flexibility to address invasive weeds, public safety concerns, regulatory requirements, and operational challenges using targeted pesticide applications when appropriate.
Council Options:
• Receive and file the report.
• Provide policy direction to staff regarding desired modifications or clarifications to the IPM Policy.
Environmental Review/Analysis:
Receiving and filing this report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it involves the review of an existing administrative policy.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.
Potential Action(s):
recommendation
If the City Council concurs with the contents of the staff report, appropriate actions include receiving and filing the report regarding the City's Integrated Pest Management Policy (Policy No. 801-5).
end
Attachment:
1. Policy 801-5, “Integrated Pest Management”
Notification:
None.