Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20100210 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 10-05
' Midpeninsula Regional • ' Open Space District Meeting 10-05 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 10, 2010 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California �^(C W (I, �, AGENDA r r 5:30* ROLL CALL C �, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT-CLOSED SESSION 1 Conference with Real Property Negotiator—California Government Code § 54956.8 Real Property—Located south of Almaden Reservoir in Barret Canyon, Santa Clara County APNs 562-23-004, 562-19-002 and 562-26-002 Agency Negotiator—Mike Williams, Real Property Manager Negotiating Party—William Edward Horstmeyer, owner; Gary Beck, owner's representative Under Negotiation—Price and terms of real property transaction 2 Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation—Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b)of California Government Code §54956.9—One Case 7:00* REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT-PUBLIC SESSION ROLL CALL 5- 2tf- REPORT ON RETURN FROM CLOSED SESSION(The Board shall publicly state any reportable action taken in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1) ** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS-PUBLIC r_ ** ADOPTION OF AGENDA C�V I R 11l - 5 -O-0 7:10* CONSENT CALENDAR k i K Cif(u,c h 1 Approve Minutes of January 13, 2010 2 Approve Revised Claims Report 3 Approve Written Communications—None 4 Appointment of Maze& Associates as the District's Auditor for FY2009-10—B. Congdon Meeting 10-05 Page 2 7r 25 �SS I� — I/11N i, / ! � j /C0. (r 7:20* BOARD BUSINESS R,` I /1 5 Consider Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the El Sr e► t�rs Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Approval of an Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for El S—p —0 Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve)—T. Hugg No Poll" 6 Field Enforcement Activity Report for Calendar Year 2009 and Ten-Year Field Activity Summary— G. Baillie INFORMATIONAL REPORTS— Written or oral 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 factual information; request staff to report back to the Board on matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. A. Committee Reports r µ^ ` A 4 C B. Staff Reports ofy fly o J !,' +.s . $'1� C. Director Reports c,,.,f�.ca C y SPECIAL MEETING CLOSED SESSION RECONVENED(IF NECESSARY) REPORT ON RETURN FROM RECONVENED CLOSED SESSION(IF NECESSARY)(The Board shall publicly state any reportable action taken in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1) v ADJOURNMENT * Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed.Agenda is subject to change of order. ** TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately,you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 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. 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. Public records provided to a majority of the District's Board of Directors relating to an Agenda Item on the open session of a regular Board meeting will be made available for public inspection at the District's Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,California 94022 during normal business hours. CERTIFICATIONOF POSTING OF AGENDA I,Anna Duong,Acting District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD),declare that the foregoing agenda for the February 10, 2010 Special and Regular Meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on February 5,2010 at the Administrative Offices of MROSD,330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,California,94022. The agenda is also available on the District's web site at http://www.openspace.org. Signed this 5th day of February 2010,at Los Altos,California. 1077— Acting District Clerk Date: 02/05/2010 f Claims No. 10-03 Meeting 10-05 Date 2/10/10 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description / 11998 $7,157.66 Northgate Environmental Management Remedial Investigations&Design At Driscoll Ranch (;,,A'1999 �;���.1,� $6,444.00 County Of Santa Clara-Bay Area Annual Membership Fee Employee Relations Service 12000 $5,000.00 *1 Chicago Title Company Deposit-Land Acquisition 12001 $4,700.00 Geocon Consultants Environmental&Geotechnical Consulting Services For Mindego Ranch Landfill 12002 $3,944.00 California Conservation Corps Bay Tree Removal To Protect Live Oaks From Sudden Oak Death 12003 $3,846.75 Art O'Neal&Associates Influencing Skills Training 12004 $3,000.00 Geocon Consultants Phase I Environmental Site Assessment For Ridge Property 12005 $2,157.39 Ecological Concerns Native Revegetation Maintenance&Monitoring-Skyline Ridge Tree Farm 12006 $2,151.26 Gardenland Power Equipment Field Supplies/Brushcutter Fuel Filters/Fuel Tank For Fire Pumper/Pole Saw Repair/Pole Saw Gaskets/Power Pruner Repair/Chain Breaker&Saw Chains 12007 $1,850.00 Jakaby Engineering Bridge Design&Engineering-Thornewood 12008 $1,656.00 Tanner Consulting Group Golf Ball Trajectory Study&Recommended Netting Plan 12009 $1,647.22 Office Depot Office Supplies/Break Room Supplies/Shredder/Copy Paper/ Mailing Labels/Fax Cartridges/Wireless Keyboard&Mouse/ Binders/Legal&Letter File Folders/Recycling Containers/In& Out Board 12010 $1,548.84 CMK Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 12011 $1,458.05 The Sign Shop Decals For Six District Vehicles 12012 $1,432.61 Shulman,Rogers,Gandal, Pordy& Legal Services-Telecommunications Advice For District Radio Ecker Frequency 12013 $1,323.00 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Legal Services&Advice 12014 $1,250.00 Rhus Ridge Associates 2010 Road Maintenance Dues 12015 $1,175.60 Coastal Chimney Sweep Chimney Cleaning&Repairs-Rental Residences 12016 $1,100.00 State Bar Of California State Bar Membership Fees-S.Schectman&D.Simmons 12017 $1,026.30 Accountemps Accounting Temp 12018 $1,020.21 The Mirror Group Professional Services-Team Coaching 12019 $985.00 Green Waste Wood Waste Dumpster Service For Eucalyptus Removal At Pulgas Ridge 12020 942.50 Normal$ Data Weed Database Development 12021 $916.41 Levy Consulting Professional Services-Team Coaching 12022 $898.35 Costco Break Room Supplies/Office Supplies/Volunteer Expenses 12023 $881.50 Wetlands&Water Resources Alpine Pond Long Term Management Plan 12024 $857.46 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies/Electrical Supplies/Plumbing Supplies For Deer Hollow Farm/Supplies For Black Mountain Water System/ Power Grinder/Utility Hooks/Bolts For FFO Landscape Project 12025 $758.28 Big Creek Lumber Lumber For FFO Landscape Project 12026 $750.00 Wendell, Kerr&Associates Appraisal Services-Bergman Property 12027 $737.67 Pine Cone Lumber Lumber For Retaining Wall At RSA 12028 $720.00 Orkin Pest Control Services-Annex 12029 $701.24 Aramark Uniform Expenses-Rain Gear 12030 $650.13 Forestry Suppliers Twenty Five Safety Vests 12031 $548.16 United Site Services Sanitation Services-Sierra Azul&Fremont Older 12032 $533.23 Acterra Native Plants For FFO Landscape Project 12033 $442.41 Moore Medical Corporation Two CPR Manikins For Training 12034 $393.30 Craftsmen Printing Printing Services-Business Cards 12035 $385.35 Beck's Shoes Uniform Expenses-Fire Boots 12036 $384.20 Stevens Creek Quarry Base Rock For Stock&FFO Landscape Project 12037 $336.77 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses 12038 $281.70 The Ferguson Group Legislative Consultant-Lobbyist For Mt.Umunhum Page 1 of 2 I j- Claims No. 10-03 Meeting 10-05 Date 2/10/10 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 12039 $228.94 Carlson, Kerry Reimbursement-Uniform Expense 12040 $200.00 City Clerks Association Of California District Clerk Ad 12041 $193.00 Rich Voss Trucking Rock Delivery-FFO Stock 12042 $183.51 Continuing Education Of The Bar Legal Books 12043 $180.20 Orlandi Trailer Trailer Parts 12044 $179.17 Moffett Supply Company Sanitation Supplies 12045 $167.50 Ergo Vera Ergonomic Evaluations 12046 $166.99 Mountain View Garden Center Bark Mulch-FFO Landscape Project 12047 $165.47 Recology Garbage Service-AO 12048 $158.59 Life Assist First Aid Supplies 12049 $157.53 Westfall Engineers Recording Fees&Map Reproduction Expenses For Ogilvie Boundary Survey i 12050 $152.56 Reeves,Michael Reimbursement-Tuition Fees 12051 $146.66 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 12052 $129.39 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expenses 12053 $128.00 American Red Cross CPR Recertification 12054 $125.57 Madco Welding Supplies 12055 $121.40 McKowan,Paul Reimbursement-Volunteer Supplies 12056 $119.00 Coastal Sierra Internet Service-SFO 12057 $118.35 California Water Service Company Water Service-AO 12058 $112.91 Danielson, Dennis Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 12059 $107.96 Perez,Mike Reimbursement-Uniform Expense 12060 $88.91 Lab Safety Supply Fire Extinguisher Signs-SFO j 12061 $77.57 Foster Brothers Lock&Key Services 12062 $75.00 Priority 1 Public Safety Equipment Repair Light Bar On Patrol Truck 12063 $69.41 Sunnyvale Ford Patrol Truck Floor Mats 12064 $66.64 Stanton, Elisa Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 12065 $61.13 G.P. Sports Motorcycle Battery 12066 $52.00 County Of Santa Clara-Office Of The Fingerprinting Services Sheriff 12067 $40.90 R&B Company Supplies For SFO Water System 12068 $30.00 Secretary Of State Public Records Request Copying Fee 12069 $29.43 Los Altos Hardware Field Supplies 12070 $28.38 CSK Auto Wiper Blades 12071 $27.94 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Fire Pumper Parts 12072 $26.06 California Water Service Company Water Service-Windy Hill 12073 $15.08 Barron Park Supply Plumbing Supplies Total $71,923.70 `1 Urgent Check Issued 2/4/10 Page 2 of 2 Claims No. 10-03 J Meeting 10-05 Date 2/10/10 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 11998 $7,157.66 Northgate Environmental Management Remedial Investigations&Design At Driscoll Ranch 11999 $6,444,00 County Of Santa Clara-Bay Area Annual Membership Fee Employee Relations Service 12000 $5,000.00 "1 Chicago Title Company Deposit-Land Acquisition 12001 $4,700.00 Geocon Consultants Environmental&Geotechnical Consulting Services For Mindego Ranch Landfill 12002 $3,944.00 California Conservation Corps Bay Tree Removal To Protect Live Oaks From Sudden Oak Death 12003 $3,846.75 Art O'Neal&Associates Influencing Skills Training 12004 $3,000.00 Geocon Consultants Phase I Environmental Site Assessment For Ridge Property 12005 $2,157.39 Ecological Concerns Native Revegetation Maintenance&Monitoring-Skyline Ridge Tree Farm 12006 $2,151.26 Gardenland Power Equipment Field Supplies/Brushcutter Fuel Filters/Fuel Tank For Fire Pumper/Pole Saw Repair/Pole Saw Gaskets/Power Pruner Repair/Chain Breaker&Saw Chains 12007 $1,850.00 Jakaby Engineering Bridge Design&Engineering-Thornewood 12008 $1,656.00 Tanner Consulting Group Golf Ball Trajectory Study&Recommended Netting Plan 12009 $1, 647.22 Office Dep ot Office Supplies/Break Room Supplies/Shredder/Copy Paper/ Mailing Labels/Fax Cartridges/Wireless Keyboard&Mouse/ Binders/Legal&Letter File Folders/Recycling Containers/In& Out Board 12010 $1,548.84 CMK Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 12011 $1,458.05 The Sign Shop Decals For Six District Vehicles 12012 $1,432.61 Shulman,Rogers,Gandal, Pordy& Legal Services-Telecommunications Advice For District Radio Ecker Frequency 12013 $1,323.00 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Legal Services&Advice 12014 $1,250.00 Rhus Ridge Associates 2010 Road Maintenance Dues 12015 $1,175.60 Coastal Chimney Sweep Chimney Cleaning&Repairs-Rental Residences 12016 $1,100.00 State Bar Of California State Bar Membership Fees-S.Schectman&D.Simmons 12017 $1,026.30 Accountemps Accounting Temp 12018 $1,020.21 The Mirror Group Professional Services-Team Coaching 12019 $985.00 Green Waste Wood Waste Dumpster Service For Eucalyptus Removal At Pulgas Ridge 12020 $942.50 Normal Data Weed Database Development 12021 $916.41 Levy Consulting Professional Services-Team Coaching 12022 $898.35 Costco Break Room Supplies/Office Supplies/Volunteer Expenses 12023 $881.50 Wetlands&Water Resources Alpine Pond Long Term Management Plan 12024 $857.46 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies/Electrical Supplies/Plumbing Supplies For Deer Hollow Farm/Supplies For Black Mountain Water System/ Power Grinder/Utility Hooks/Bolts For FFO Landscape Project 12025 $758.28 Big Creek Lumber Lumber For FFO Landscape Project J 12026 $750.00 Wendell, Kerr&Associates Appraisal Services-Bergman Property 12027 $737.67 Pine Cone Lumber Lumber For Retaining Wall At RSA 12028 $720.00 Orkin Pest Control Services-Annex 12029 $701.24 Aramark Uniform Expenses-Rain Gear 12030 $650.13 Forestry Suppliers Twenty Five Safety Vests 12031 $548.16 United Site Services Sanitation Services-Sierra Azul&Fremont Older 12032 $533.23 Acterra Native Plants For FFO Landscape Project 12033 $442A1 Moore Medical Corporation Two CPR Manikins For Training 12034 $393.30 Craftsmen Printing Printing Services-Business Cards 12035 $385.35 Beck's Shoes Uniform Expenses-Fire Boots 12036 $384.20 Stevens Creek Quarry Base Rock For Stock&FFO Landscape Project 12037 $336.77 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses 12038 $281.70 The Ferguson Group Legislative Consultant-Lobbyist For Mt.Umunhum Page 1 of 3 1 Claims No. 10-03 Meeting 10-05 Date 2/10/10 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 12039 $228.94 Carlson,Kerry Reimbursement-Uniform Expense 12040 $200.00 City Clerks Association Of California District Clerk Ad 12041 $193.00 Rich Voss Trucking Rock Delivery-FFO Stock 12042 $183.51 Continuing Education Of The Bar Legal Books 12043 $180.20 Orlandi Trailer Trailer Parts 12044 $179.17 Moffett Supply Company Sanitation Supplies 12045 $167.50 Ergo Vera Ergonomic Evaluations 12046 $166.99 Mountain View Garden Center Bark Mulch-FFO Landscape Project 12047 $165.47 Recology Garbage Service-AO 12048 $158.59 Life Assist First Aid Supplies 12049 $157.53 Westfall Engineers Recording Fees&Map Reproduction Expenses For Ogilvie Boundary Survey 12050 $152.56 Reeves,Michael Reimbursement-Tuition Fees 12051 $146.66 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 12052 $129.39 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expenses 12053 $128.00 American Red Cross CPR Recertification 12054 $125.57 Madco Welding Supplies 12055 $121.40 McKowan,Paul Reimbursement-Volunteer Supplies 12056 $119.00 Coastal Sierra Internet Service-SFO 12057 $118.35 California Water Service Company Water Service-AO 12058 $112.91 Danielson, Dennis Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 12059 $107.96 Perez,Mike Reimbursement-Uniform Expense 12060 $88.91 Lab Safety Supply Fire Extinguisher Signs-SFO 12061 $77.57 Foster Brothers Lock&Key Services 12062 $75.00 Priority 1 Public Safety Equipment Repair Light Bar On Patrol Truck 12063 $69.41 Sunnyvale Ford Patrol Truck Floor Mats 12064 $66.64 Stanton, Elisa Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 12065 $61.13 G.P. Sports Motorcycle Battery 12066 $52.00 County Of Santa Clara-Office Of The Fingerprinting Services Sheriff 12067 $40.90 R&B Company Supplies For SFO Water System 12068 $30.00 Secretary Of State Public Records Request Copying Fee 12069 $29.43 Los Altos Hardware Field Supplies 12070 $28.38 CSK Auto Wiper Blades 12071 $27.94 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Fire Pumper Parts 12072 $26.06 California Water Service Company Water Service-Windy Hill 12073 $15.08 Barron Park Supply Plumbing Supplies 12074 R $7,844.33 Emergency Vehicle Systems Outfit Patrol Truck With Code 3 Equipment 12075 R $6,903.56 Northgate Environmental Management Environmental Consulting Services-Review U.S.Army Corps Of Engineers Work At Mt.Umunhum 12076 R $3,850.11 Home Depot Field Supplies/Batteries For Cordless Drills/Lumber&Materials For Floor Repairs-Rental Residence/Lumber&Supplies For DHF/Concrete&Supplies For FFO Landscape Project/FFO Shop Supplies/Gutters&Downspouts For SFO Storage Shed 12077 R $1,300.00 Normal Data Consulting Services-Citation Database Development&Support 12078 R $1,033.74 Del Woods Consulting Services-Land Purchase Projects 12079 R $845.00 Normal Data Consulting Services-Contact&Volunteer Database Development 12080 R $605.00 Gorman,Michael Reimbursement-Welding Training Course 12081 R $569.67 Recology South Bay Recycling Service-Debris Boxes 12082 R $530.63 Foster Brothers Lock&Key Services-Fourteen Padlocks/Forty Keys/Twenty Key Tags 12083 R $500.30 Recology South bay Garbage Service-FFO Page 2 of 3 i Claims No. 10-03 r Meeting 10-05 Date 2/10/10 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 12084 R $351.00 Davison,Steve Reimbursement-Tuition 12085 R $240.36 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses 12086 R $165.80 Firestone Complete Auto Care Tire For Wood Chipper 12087 R $157.66 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Maintenance Truck Water Tank Supplies 12088 R $137.57 Petty Cash Office Supplies/Field Supplies/Parking&Mileage/Carwashes For District Vehicles/Business Related Meals/Training Expenses/Breakroom Supplies 12089 R $115.00 Orkin Pest Control Services-Annex 12090 R $105.54 Robert's Hardware Field Supplies/Water Trough At Black Mountain/Rental Residence Expenses 12091 R $71.00 Terminix Pest Control-AO 12092 R $64.00 Stanton, Elisa Reimbursement-EMT Refresher Course 12093 R $55.00 Protection One Fire Inspection&Monitoring 12094 R $53.90 Britt, Kristi Reimbursement-Postage 12095 R $24.00 Sunset Magazine Subscription 12096 R $14.75 Barron Park Supply Restroom Supply-RSA Total $97,461.62 '1 Urgent Check Issued 214/10 Page 3 of 3 Midpeninsula Regional ' Open Space District R-10-27 Meeting 10-05 February 10, 2010 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Appointment of Maze & Associates as the District's Auditor for FY2009-10. a CONTROLLER'S RECOMMENDATION Appoint Maze & Associates as the District's auditor for FY2009-10 and authorize the General Manager to execute an engagement letter agreement in the amount of$24,725. DISCUSSION In 2008, the District entered into a three-year agreement with Maze & Associates to serve as the District's auditor. Maze & Associates' professional services were excellent in conducting the District's FY2007-08 and FY2008-09 year-end audit. Staff recommends the District continue to retain Maze & Associates for the FY2009-10 year-end audit, which will commence in May 2010. By prior agreement, Maze & Associates' audit fee for FY2009-10 is $24,725. Maze and Associates audit fees for prior FY2007-08 was $22,860 and $23,774 for FY2008-09. FISCAL IMPACT The District's required financial audit is an ongoing, annual cost. The Controller's Recommendation represents a $951 incremental increase over the amount paid to Maze& Associates in the previous year. The entire amount, $24,725, is included in the Administration Department's FY2010-11 proposed budget. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. No additional notice is necessary. CEQA COMPLIANCE No compliance is required as this action is not a project under CEQA. R-10-27 Page 2 NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, staff will contact Maze & Associates to request an engagement letter and will set up a purchase order to retain their audit services. Prepared by: Anna Duong, Deputy District Clerk Contact person: Bunny Congdon, Interim Administration Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-10-35 Meeting 10-05 February 10, 2010 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Consider Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Approval of an Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve). GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS��- 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the Resolution attached to this report. 2. Approve an Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve to construct a new paved parking lot, construct new trail improvements, realign a segment of the Steam Donkey Trail, sign designated roadside shoulders along Skyline Boulevard (also known as Highway 35) as "No Parking" zones, relocate an existing Skyline Boulevard trail/pedestrian crossing, and close the gate CM04 entrance to public use. SUMMARY Over the last ten years, the District has made an effort to establish a formal parking lot for the Preserve. Although 2.2 miles of Skyline Boulevard extend along the perimeter of the Preserve, this task has proven to be a major challenge given the steep, rugged, and heavily forested terrain and the constrained sight distances resulting from the winding and rolling nature of Skyline Boulevard. Extensive evaluation of various parking area sites and driveway location alternatives, including multiple traffic studies, have concluded that the proposed parking area and driveway location best meet the project goals. Staff has also concluded, based on the environmental review, that the project will have no significant effect on the environment as mitigated. R-10-35 Page 2 DISCUSSION Background El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve was first established in 1985, and has expanded to 2,817 acres through six land purchases between 1985 and 1998. The Preserve provides 34.1 miles of recreational trails across spectacular landscapes, including redwood forested canyons and open vistas with views to the ocean. However, the Preserve offers no formal parking lot. Instead, visitors must park either at a Caltrans vista point parking area (Skeggs Point) or in pullouts and roadside shoulders along Skyline Boulevard. There are three separate Preserve entrances along Skyline Boulevard that serve as the main public access entry points with the vast majority of visitors (approximately 96%) entering through Gates CMO I (Skeggs Point Trailhead) and CM02 (Methuselah Trailhead) (see Attachment 2). Over the last ten years, the District has worked to plan for a formal parking lot for the Preserve. Although the steep, forested terrain and constrained sight distances along Skyline Boulevard have proven to be key challenging factors, the planning process has resulted in a project design that meets the District's objectives. A brief project history follows: 1989 In an August 17 staff report recommending approval of an Interim Use and Management Plan for the Preserve, staff identified the potential need for a future onsite parking lot should visitor use increase in later years (refer to Reports R-89-124 and R-89-131). 1999 On March 24, the Board approved the concept of a formal parking lot as part of an amendment to the Trail Use Plan (Plan) that focused on the northeastern area of the Preserve known at that time as Study Area 2. The Plan explained the need for a parking facility. The Plan also identified the realignment of Steam Donkey Trail to create a short loop from a future parking lot and a new trail alignment to the south in order to complete the longer interior perimeter trail (this section of trail is now referred to as the proposed Bay Area Ridge Trail). At that time, staff informed the Board of conceptual parking plans underway that would be presented at a later date (refer to Reports R-99-34, R-99-45, and R-98-79). 1999 Staff, with the assistance of a Landscape Architect consultant, developed conceptual parking lot plans for two alternative sites, the first located at a scenic knoll that provides stunning panoramic views to the coast (currently used as an emergency helicopter landing zone) and the second just below and northeast of the vista point knoll. These conceptual plans were used to initiate preliminary project study discussions. 1999 On September 13, the Use and Management Committee held an onsite meeting to review the conceptual parking lot plans. Approximately eight members of the public were in attendance. 2002 After additional field studies, staff identified a third possible site for the parking lot located just southeast of the original two alternative sites, in a flat, previously disturbed area heavily covered with French broom. Of the three alternative sites, staff has identified this option as the best site, and it continues to be staff s recommended site given the flat terrain, large available space, proximity to a ranger residence for off-hours surveillance, access to Skyline Boulevard, and lack of trees. By moving the proposed parking site to this location, the grassy knoll is preserved, the emergency helicopter landing zone retained, and the dramatic vista point maintained as a strong R-10-35 Page 3 feature of the Preserve. The recommended parking lot site is also further from the edge of the highway and the private residences situated across from it. 2004 On January 21, the Board approved the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program (WPP) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Report R-04-10). The WPP identifies the design of and feasibility studies for the parking lot as a desirable project that would include signboards and interpretive signage to help disseminate information about the WPP. 2004 On March 10, the Board approved an application for the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council/Coastal ConservancyProposition 40 Grant for the planning and design of the potential parking lot and new segment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail through the Preserve (see Report R-04-37). The awarded matching grant of$35,650 is funding the current project design that is pending project approval. 2005 On April 13, the Board authorized the General Manager to execute a consulting contract agreement with the civil engineering firm, LFR, Inc., (LFR) to refine the conceptual plan (see Report R-05-41). To date, LFR has worked with staff to address issues regarding parking capacity, traffic patterns, signage, and visitor safety; prepared the proposed site design and layout of the parking lot; and assisted staff throughout the Use and Management Committee, Board, and public review process. 2005 On July 19, staff held a neighborhood meeting onsite to present an overview of the proposed project, identify neighborhood issues early in the planning process, and answer questions. Approximately five members of the public were in attendance. 2005 On October 22, the Use and Management Committee held an onsite public meeting to review project goals, project history and the conceptual layout for the proposed parking lot and trails. Approximately ten members of the public were in attendance. At this meeting, the Committee heard from several members of the public. Some expressed their concern about the proposed driveway location and its proximity to neighborhood driveways and nearby street junctions. Members of the Committee asked staff to review other driveway alternatives (Gates CM03 and CM04) to determine if these offered better lines of sight and improved traffic flow. Staff coordinated with LFR to conduct these follow-up traffic studies, which were presented at the February 23, 2006 meeting of the Use and Management Committee (see below). 2006 On February 23, the Use and Management Committee held a subsequent meeting on the project. In response to questions previously raised, staff provided additional background information to explain how the proposed site was identified and presented a comparative analysis of three potential driveway locations. The Committee tabled the item and asked staff to evaluate: (1) a 200-foot corridor north of the original proposed driveway to determine if a fourth alternate driveway location with improved line-of-sight could be identified, (2) the need and feasibility of providing equestrian trailer parking, and (3) the parking demand and the number of parking spaces that the new parking lot should accommodate. Approximately 14 members of the public were in attendance. 2007 On December 18, the Use and Management Committee held a follow-up meeting on the proposed project to review new information as requested. At this meeting, staff presented the sight distance findings of two additional potential driveway locations. As a result of these new findings, staff modified its recommendation by changing the R-10-35 Page 4 driveway location approximately 100 feet north of the original driveway where sight distances are improved. Approximately 11 members of the public were in attendance. Based on staff findings, the Committee recommended that the project be presented to the full Board. 2008 On April 9, the project was presented to the full Board. At this meeting, staff presented the proposed parking lot with the new driveway located 100 feet north of the original driveway location and recommended use of asphalt in lieu of gravel for reduced maintenance and long-term cost. The Board directed staff to begin the environmental review process. The Board also asked staff to: (1) evaluate traffic impacts to the existing residential driveway located across from the proposed project driveway and (2) evaluate the feasibility of relocating an existing trail/pedestrian crossing near Gate CM04. Approximately ten members of the public were in attendance. Project Description (see Attachment 3) The project consists of the construction of a new 65-vehicle, four-horse trailer parking and staging area, a 0.25-mile connector trail, a 1.75-mile perimeter trail, a 0.2-mile trail realignment, and restoration of 0.7 miles of abandoned trail; installation of"No Parking" signs to remove 40 roadside parking spaces on Skyline Boulevard (see Attachment 6); and relocation of an existing Skyline Boulevard trail/pedestrian crossing (see Attachment 5). The proposed parking area would serve as the Preserve's first dedicated parking area. All current parking occurs along the Skyline Boulevard roadside or at a Caltrans vista point parking lot known as Skeggs Point. The proposed trails would connect the new parking area to the existing trail system, enhance public access in the eastern part of the Preserve, and address erosion issues on an existing trail alignment. The "No Parking" signs would eliminate deficient roadside parking spaces with poor lines of sight and insufficient shoulder width. The purpose of relocating the roadway trail/pedestrian crossing would be to improve trail user and traffic safety as trail users travel between the Preserve and the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The proposed project components are described in more detail below. A complete description of the project is included in the Initial Study(see Attachment 8). Parking Lot (see Attachment 4) The proposed parking lot is located on a flat, previously disturbed one acre site, approximately 25 feet higher in elevation and 100 feet from the edge of Skyline Boulevard. Prior to District ownership, the site was cleared for use as a logger's campground during past timber harvest operations. The site is now overgrown with non-native invasive French broom and periwinkle and is surrounded by mixed-evergreen forest. The proposed parking lot would include 65 parking spaces and four end-to-end equestrian trailer parking spaces. The driveway leading from Skyline Boulevard to the parking lot would be approximately 380 feet long. It meets line-of-sight requirements and complies with Caltrans pen-nit requirements. The parking spaces would be laid out along a drive aisle that loops around a central bioretention basin. The parking lot is designed to drain the storm water runoff from the pavement into a series of three engineered bioretention basins. The new paved parking lot would also include: (1) A large preserve entrance sign (2) A two-stall, unisex, ADA-accessible, self-contained vault restroom facility (3) Two ADA-accessible parking spaces (part of the 65 vehicles spaces) i R-10-35 Page 5 (4) Two trailhead signboards with brochure holders (5) A bicycle tire and hiking boot cleaning station (6) Split-rail wood fencing (7) A new 20-foot wide driveway entry (8) Designating the Gate CM04 access road as a service road only (no public use) (9) A series of bioretention basins where storm water runoff is collected and allowed to percolate into the soil The parking lot will be constructed using earth-moving equipment such as a compact bulldozer and mini-excavator and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control from the District's Watershed Protection Program and Details and Specifications Guidelines. The recommended driveway alignment for the parking lot would require the removal of approximately three large trees that are over than 12 inches in diameter and considered significant trees by San Mateo County's Significant Tree Ordinance (two redwoods, one Douglas fir) where the driveway is proposed to join Skyline Boulevard. The largest tree expected to be removed is 36 inches in diameter; the two other larger trees are between 18 and 20 inches. Up to as many as 24 small trees, between four and twelve inches in diameter, may also be removed. The majority of the recommended driveway would be located along an existing interior access road thus minimizing the amount of additional grading and impact to other existing trees. The District would need to secure tree removal permits from San Mateo County. District staff directed the District's traffic engineering consultants to evaluate the impacts of the parking lot on Skyline Boulevard's traffic volume capacity and impacts of the proposed drivewayon the existing residential driveway located across the highway. As discussed in the g Y Initial Study, even if all of the additional parking were assumed to be new trips, which would be a highly unlikely worst case scenario, the parking lot could add up to 70 new trips during the peak hour. The peak hour of traffic volume on Skyline Boulevard is 120 vehicles. This is less than six percent (6%) of the roadway's capacity of 2,240 vehicles per hour. Therefore, any new trips resulting from the proposed parking lot would not significantly affect traffic conditions on Skyline Boulevard. The existing residential driveway nearest the proposed project serves two houses. It is estimated to serve less than 10 exiting vehicles per day on weekends, when the preserve is busiest. The probability of a vehicle exiting the residential driveway at the same time as a vehicle using the proposed Preserve driveway is less than 1%. In addition, vehicles using the Preserve driveway will be more visible to the residential driveway users than is existing traffic on Skyline Boulevard. Therefore, any new trips resulting from the proposed parking lot would not significantly impact the existing residential driveway located across the highway. Analysis of Alternative Parking Lot Locations Staff conducted feasibility studies of potential staging area sites along the length of the Preserve. Steep side slopes and embankments, and limited sight lines, narrowed down the number of possible locations to three located to the north of Gate CM01, one at Gate CM02, and one between Gates CM03 and CM04. Sites were removed from consideration based on criteria such as whether they had sufficient space to meet San Mateo County fire and emergency turnaround or access requirements, or to meet minimum dimensions for parking spaces and a drive aisle. Other considerations included the feasibility of connecting to the existing Preserve trail system, the extent of grading and the comparative cost required to create sufficiently flat areas, the lack of space for staging area amenities, the number of heritage and other large trees that would R-10-35 Page 6 require removal, and the elimination of existing parking to accommodate access. Based on the analysis of these sites, the proposed location was selected as the preferred location. Relocating Trail/Pedestrian Crossing, Across Skyline Boulevard At the April 9, 2008 Board meeting, the Board asked staff to evaluate the feasibility of relocating a trail/pedestrian crossing that currently exists near Gate CM04. The project proposes to close the Gate CM04 entrance to public use. Staff explored the entire length of the Preserve in search of a crossing location with adequate sight distances. Another criterion included the feasibility of connecting the crossing to the existing trail system in the Preserve as well as the Bay Area Ridge Trail east of Skyline Boulevard. The steep, rugged, and heavily forested terrain and the constrained sight distances resulting from the winding and rolling nature of Skyline Boulevard narrowed the focus to a site located approximately 1,000 feet south of Gate CM02. This section of highway is relatively flat and is one of a few straight sections of road along the Preserve boundary. It is also the only area of the highway along the Preserve boundary that legally allows vehicle passing based on Caltrans road markings. The traffic engineering consultants working on the project calculated required sight distances at the crossing location and verified in the field that the existing sight distances meet Caltrans requirements. Staff determined that trail access to both the Preserve trail network and the Bay Area Ridge Trail on the east side of Skyline Boulevard is feasible at this location given the relative proximity both in elevation and in distance of both existing trail systems to the highway. The trail crossing relocation will be subject to Caltrans and San Mateo County review and require permits. Correspondence with Caltrans has indicated support of the relocated trail/pedestrian crossing pending review of final permit drawings. The project will also require a trail easement agreement with California Water Service Company to relocate the Skyline Boulevard pedestrian/trail crossing and make a trail connection to the existing Bay Area Ridge Trail. Correspondence with California Water Service Company has indicated support in working with District staff to achieve this connection. No Parking Zones Along Skyline Boulevard and Redistributing Parking Roadside parking occurs in pull-off areas along Skyline Boulevard, primarily near Skeggs Point and Gate CM02 (refer to Exhibit Q. Skyline Boulevard has shoulders where additional parking can occur. This is in addition to the Skeggs Point parking lot, which can accommodate approximately 45 cars in the lot and 10 cars along the roadside directly adjacent to it. Roadside parking along the highway is of concern to the District particularly in areas where roadside shoulders are very narrow and line-of-sight is an issue. Staff has identified problematic roadside parking areas along the Preserve's highway frontage and recommends working with Caltrans to remove 40 roadside parking spaces and signing these as "No Parking" zones. These 40 roadside spaces are used during heavy visitation periods per District ranger observations and field verifications. The"No Parking" zones will be subject to Caltrans review and require permits. Correspondence with Caltrans has indicated support of the proposed signs pending review of final design drawings. R-10-35 Page 7 Parking Capacity and Use Staff had initially proposed an 85-car parking lot. The Use and Management Committee felt that this was too large and requested that staff return with a more modest proposal. Staff believes that the current proposal for a 65-car lot with space for four equestrian trailers is a reasonable size for Preserve visitors who would otherwise park at Skeggs Point or use roadside parking. Not having to cross the highway and the presence of restroom facilities will also draw visitors from Skegg's Point and roadside parking areas to the new parking lot. Staff also concludes that closing the problematic roadside pullouts will draw many visitors to the new staging area who would have parked in these pullouts. On weekend days during the dry months, staff anticipates that the lot may be at or near capacity. Trail Improvements The proposed trail improvements component of the project will enhance the Preserve's trail system by expanding the available trail loop opportunities and completing the Preserve's long distance perimeter trail. The trail improvements also include an important 1.25-mile extension of the regional Bay Area Ridge Trail (Ridge Trail or BART) along the Preserve's eastern ridge to help close the Ridge Trail gap south of Wunderlich County Park. (The various trail improvements are described in detail in the Initial Study.) To date, the majority of use is concentrated in the north and western area of the Preserve,primarily because of the proximity of available parking and the multiple loop opportunities in that corner of the Preserve. Consistent with the majority of trails in the Preserve, all new proposed trails are recommended to be open to multiple-use (hiking, equestrian use, and mountain bicycling). The proposed trail improvements would result in a net gain of approximately 2.0 miles of trail, which would not dramatically change the current trail density of the Preserve. Closure of Gate CM04 Entrance to Public Use The District maintains a trailhead at Gate CM04 that is infrequently used by the public to access the Preserve and its various trails. In these instances, visitors park at the roadside pullout near Gate CM04, at times blocking the residential mailboxes, and enter either on foot or on bicycle. Some mountain bicyclists also exit through this gate and ride on the highway and/or Bear Gulch Road East to access other trailheads to complete a modified perimeter trail experience. The proposed new parking lot and completion of the interior perimeter trail will eliminate the need for the Gate CM04 Trailhead. Moreover, the District wishes to prevent visitors using the new parking lot from crossing the highway near Gate CM04 to enter Wunderlich County Park because of the limited lines-of-sight at this location. Staff reviewed the proposed closure of Gate CM04 with San Mateo County Parks who concurs with this recommendation and supports the project. For these reasons, closure of the Gate CM04 trailhead is recommended. The access road will instead be signed and gated for use strictly as a service road for patrol and to allow field staff to transport equipment to and from the Preserve. Staff will work with Caltrans, San Mateo County, and California Water Service Company to relocate the crossing approximately 1,000 feet south of Gate CM02, where there is sufficient visibility on the highway to facilitate an improved public trail crossing. USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Public Access: Construct a 65-car, four-equestrian trailer parking lot with a 380-foot driveway; a double, unisex pit toilet restroom; signboards; and Sudden Oak Death tire and boot cleaning R-10-35 Page 8 station. Construct 2.0 miles of multiple-use trail, including a segment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Realign a steep, 0.5-mile segment of the Stearn Donkey Trail. Construct approximately 350 feet of new narrow trail to connect to existing trail systems on either side of the highway. Close the Gate CM04 entrance to public use. Patrol: Routinely patrol the parking lot and new trails in the Preserve. Enforce"No Parking After Preserve Hours" at the new parking lot and at designated "No Parking" zones along Skyline Boulevard adjacent to the Preserve. Signs: Install a regulatory sign at the new trailhead entrance at the new parking lot. Install new trail directional signs as needed. Install a new Preserve entrance sign. Install a sign to prohibit visitor use of Gate CM04. Install a sign at equestrian trailer parking spaces with instructions on the use of spaces. Work with Caltrans to identify and establish roadside areas that will be signed as "No Parking" zones. Install trail crossing signs to alert drivers of the relocated trail/pedestrian crossing on Skyline Boulevard. Barriers: Install a new Preserve parking lot gate at the new parking lot driveway entrance. Install a new gate barrier leading to the service road to prevent visitors from exiting out of Gate CM04. Install new signs and stiles on either side of the roadway to connect to existing trail systems on the east and west of Skyline Boulevard at the trail/pedestrian crossing south of Gate CM02 and at the new parking lot trailhead entrance to the Preserve. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Midyear budget for FY2009-10 of$90,500 includes funds for civil engineering services to prepare permit drawings for submittal to Caltrans and San Mateo County if the project is approved. As of this Board meeting, a total of$18,802.68 has been spent from FY2009-1 0. PUBLIC NOTICE A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the State Clearinghouse of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research on October 6, 2009, stating that the public review period would start on October 6, 2009 and end on November 6, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the Notice of Intent was also submitted to the San Mateo County Clerk for posting and mailed to interested parties and property owners of land located adjacent to or within 300 feet of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The Notice, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available for public review at the District's Administrative Office and on the District's website. Notices were also posted at main trailhead entrances to the Preserve. Property owners of land located adjacent to or within 300 feet of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve and interested parties have been mailed written notices of this proposed Use and Management Plan Amendment. All legal notice requirements of CEQA have been met, in addition to public noticing requirements of the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE R-10-35 Page 9 District staff prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating the El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project(Project). The District received public comment on the document and has responded to these comments in the attached Responses to Comments document (see Attachment 9). The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration found that a number of CEQA impact criteria do not apply to the project due to its design, scope and location. The document also found that the project either avoids impacts or minimizes them to a less-than-significant level, due to the specific nature of the project, the project design, or because of mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project. Most notably, the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration found that the project will not adversely affect agricultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, and public services in that such impacts simply do not apply to the proposed project, given the rural, vegetated environment of the project, the low-intensity recreational uses that are associated with the project, and the minor construction disturbance expected by the project. The project will not adversely affect land use or public services,based on project-specific factors that allow the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. The project will not adversely affect air quality, aesthetics, geology & soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation, or utilities and service systems based on project-specific factors that reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project will not adversely affect biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, or traffic and transportation because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project has reduced the impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the project will not: • Create impacts that degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the project's fundamentally small scale, localized nature; • Create impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level; and • Create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with CEQA, the District has prepared the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program, which describes project-specific mitigation measures and monitoring process (see Attachment 7). The proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented. The project incorporates all of these mitigation measures. R-10-35 Page 10 CEQA Findings Pursuant to CEQA, it is determined that the project will have no significant or cumulative effects because of implementation and adherence to mitigation measures that will prevent substantial impacts to environmental resources. It is also determined that project implementation will not result in direct and indirect substantial adverse impacts or significant risk to human beings. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, staff will file a Notice of Detennination with the San Mateo County Clerk and return to the Board at a later date to request a contract amendment with the project civil engineer to prepare needed engineering and permit drawings. Attachments: I: Resolution 2: Preserve Map 3: Project Map 4: Conceptual Parking Lot Plan 5: Trail/ Pedestrian/ BART (Bay Area Ridge Trail) Crossing 6: Roadside Parking Map 7: Mitigation Monitoring Program 8: Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 9: Response to Comments Prepared by: Tina Hugg, CLA, Open Space Planner 11 Ana Ruiz, AICP, Planning Manager Contact person: Tina Hugg, CLA, Open Space Planner 11 RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCLUDING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK PARKING/STAGING AREA AND TRAILS PROJECT AT EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE I. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District) is considering an amendment to the Use and Management Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve)asset forth in Agenda Report R-10-35 (Report) and various actions implementing the amendment("Project"). 11. An Initial Study (IS), attached to the Report, was prepared for the Project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines(14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.). III. The IS identified potentially significant adverse effects on the environment from the proposed project but found that mitigation measures proposed for the Project and made a part of the project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. IV. The IS and a notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)were circulated for public review from October 6, 2009 to November 6, 2009. The Mitigation Monitoring Program was included in the Report distributed to the Board and public on February 5, 2010. V. On February 10, 2010 the Board of Directors conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the MND (including the IS) at which oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the MND were presented to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors reviewed and considered the information in the IS and MND, administrative record, and Staff Reports for completeness and compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors that, based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented, the Board of Directors finds that: 1. Notice of the availability of the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and all hearings on the MND was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. All interested parties desiring to comment on the proposed MND were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND prior to this action by the Board of Directors and all comments raised during the public comment period and at the public hearings on the MND were responded to adequately. l 3. Prior to approving the Project that is the subject of the proposed MND; the Board has considered the MND along with all comments received during the public review process. 4. The Board finds that the mitigation measures CULT-3 and AESTH-1 as drafted are undesirable and should be deleted and substituted with the measures shown below. The measures shown below include the original terms of measures CULT-3 and AESTH-1 with new text highlighted in bold double underline and deleted text shown in bold strikeout. The substitute measures will be more effective in mitigating potential significant effects because(a)as to CULT-3, the new measure provides notification to additional experts to assist the District in responding to a discovery of human remains and, (b) as to AESTH-1, the new measure provides for more trees to be planted to replace any significant trees that need to be removed. Neither the additional notification required by the new CULT-3 nor the additional tree planting required by AESTH-1 will cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. The substitute measures are as follows: CULT-3. If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the District will immediately halt work, contact.the San Mateo County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in §I5064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 1 5000-1 53 87). The District will immediately notify the California Department of Transportation Cultural Resource Studies Office_District 4 at(5510)286-5618. No further disturbance of the site, the area within 50 feet of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which shall be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. AESTH-1. Replace trees that need to be removed, which are both larger than 12 inches in diameter at breast height and located within 100 feet from Skyline Boulevard, at a 5:1 ratio using 15-gallon size redwood trees. Based on field analysis and the survey map prepared for the project,three trees have been identified that are expectedJa require two redwoods measuring 36 20 and 18 inches in e Douglas fir and > replacement: on g g t height, respectively. The new trees will be incorporated diameter at breast g into the landscaping plan for the parking lot and placed within one-half mile of the site no closer than 20 feet from the travel way,and no closer than four(4) feet above the travel way in areas cnntaininu embankments. These measures are required to be implemented as part of the project and have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this Report. 5 The Board finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the MND, initial study, and all comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. 6. The Board adopts the proposed MND and determines that it reflects the District's independent judgment and analysis. 7. The Board adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this Report and requires it to be implemented as part of the Project. 8. The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the offices of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. it EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 11 H.dd,H Puriafna Creek Redwrxfds �`^`• -Y+� 01'"Space Prrsenr � * f mtain RLLad Tcagur Hill , Open Space � ".". Prrsl.•rvc ,Swett Road♦ �Ky `•. 11•' fs pc WA--cr.,apom na 01 n. t 11.E 'fir' 111 ,, li. t u'f ! 0.9 " �' ?. r• Wunderlich Park x.i 0.4 a.l �J t�rcMon`_, froMll b ty oam ti .a •�1' xl.urrx`\� ai. � �i'a o.l o.. 1.aJ rr 'h.n� � \ � ► � n.e r�s t y c b 1.2 y �11 '1 xMwixid.rn , ` • 1.2 0.1 �1GW nx 'y 4 w r r R f Ya e at 'l '120 / �� la ll.nuL(red her r.r I .1 -1 .i w .' b4.0 IMV t"*W trail Us F-1 ER O Haltlr(i^Ir tYlink Ifa4n4,tlnr.fwry. ,Ir�.b ArrtY�-A 'I r.il l>I 1.�1.,_ fx�a,ln \rids4 bWwar Ynle..w f[N rarerY Aw1d r]Ilxr1-6 r4o .I+ILn.M rnn• mKH Y�r41.4 Yu4rrr Illflfrfl IWir rr4l tyw.lrun lyu..nur aMl� ~hn lnM Attachment 2: Preserve Map �� i�� r Creek-•. El Corte de Madera Cr k '�� ,.•.. California Water Service Company Proposed Staging Area and Trail Improvements II,)t"xl New{rail ' • I hcyxmd Trail Realignment k t rr_i{losed'Rail Cluuue and 7{ -- EziVing Narrow Trail i`•., U Helicopter lawling Zow 1 * } District Residoxe ' r.cW3 Proposed ® Presetw.G le Staging Area Atinur unpa�crlRclxi hiiiwx Paved Road ` Wunderlich County Park C+ui� z I lighway 35 •,. a .,...''.:....�••••• ♦ '� I1isUid Preserve !.ntler Publict.�len Space }}}611{l1 waterst"I land Ow e `} gat°sfa° El Corte de Madera a, ♦ Creek Redwoods 1 3_Ir Open Space Preserve ♦ r •(III)� - ,t _`,_ i ".,... $C31Q 1 11 000 Attachment 3: Project Map i — 77~- Attachment 4: Conceptual Parking Lot Plan El Corte de Madera Creek s� Potential BART Crossing \ _ ♦ti�� � �--�`"�~�••4'"`�, �� � � � Proposed Bay Area Ridge Tral Segment Proposed Connecting Trail Proposed Steam Donkey Trail !MeAkeilah Tree Potential BART Crossing ' Realignment CM02 �y..,,,�... 4`�ti. } �Proposed Trail Closure and Mgt(�USe/a� Dernmmissioning Proposed Conversion to Service Road,No Public Access Line of-Sight Corridor Helicopter Landing Zane District Empbyee Residence \\ Preserve Gate s ++� Existing Narrow Trail El Corte de Madera �, '� " " �d, � Minor Unpaved Read Creek Open Space4 �\ E� •`dam Preserve °�.: Punshna Creek Rectwocift �b open Spare !` r% \'�:_ •na•.�C M03 ��'=•^.,,.,� � 6 caw«. _ 1-rail t� _ Ei rate ee Maaer: ///7/ 111ff1 r'3 • - L r,reekn Sp.8as wa.ae, open specs c.wcY Preswe Pan 0 oz.� '>. 04 La HoWa Open space f `« •' �'}�,�� 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet *Ss i Attachment 5: Trail/Pedestrian/BART (Bay Area Ridge Trail) Crossing Map R welt Roca - Proposed-No Parking"Areas Iti (Approx.40 vehicular spaces) I are Proposed New Parking Lot Skegg's Vista Point Parking Lot CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE LANDS P.��'y f: Residence O Preserve Gate ---- Narrow Trail Unpaved Road Paved Road F � -• ; � e� Highway 35 GI strict Preserve Other Public Open Space Watershed Land Private r 4 crn03�. r,`ti_,� s<GulchRdEt� �` j 5. CF104 WUNDIRIICH EL CORTE DE MADERA t ^'�{ f .:,`,� COLNiY PARK CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE •,' ' Mead p� ram'"'•.,..._......... �- �__ � �i�. :�.ac _f a e 0 09 3 Attachment 6: Roadside Parking Map openSp"ace Attachment 7 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11 Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve San Mateo County, CA February 10, 2010 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 650-691-1200 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONTENTS This mitigation monitoring program (MMP) includes a brief discussion of the legal basis and purpose of the program, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, discussion and direction regarding noncompliance complaints, and the mitigation monitoring matrix itself. LEGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resources Code (PRC) 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring ! or reporting programs whenever certifying an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) process. MONITORING MATRIX The following pages provide a series of tables identifying the mitigations incorporated into the El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project (Project) at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. These mitigations are reproduced from the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The columns within the tables have the following meanings: Number: The number in this column refers to the Initial Study section where the mitigation is discussed. Mitigation: This column lists the specific mitigation identified within the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Timing: This column identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation will be completed. The mitigations are organized in roughly chronological order relative to the time of implementation. Who will This column references the District department that will ensure implementation of verify? the mitigation. Agency This column references any public agency or District department wit h which Department coordination is required to ensure implementation of the mitigation. California Consultation: Department of Fish and Game is listed as CDFG. Verification: This column will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to confirm implementation. NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures associated with the Project. The complaint shall be directed to the District's General Manager in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The General Manager shall cause an investigation and determine the validity of the complaint, if noncompliance with a mitigation has occurred, the General Manager shall cause appropriate actions to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue. 1 of 8 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verif v? or Agency Consultation Initials) CONSTRUCTIONVERIFY COMPLETION PRIOR TO START OF Mitigation Mitigation incorporated into project for in Section aesthetics: I(b): AESTH-1. Replace trees that need to be removed, New trees will be incorporated into the Planning Operations and/or which are both larger than 12 inches in diameter at project construction documents for the Planning(Resource breast height and located within 100 feet from parking lot. Mgmt Specialist) Skyline Boulevard, at a 1S:1 ratio using 514-gallon size redwood trees. Based on field analysis and the survey map prepared for the project,three trees have been identified that are expected to require replacement: one Douglas fir and two redwoods measuring 36, 20 and 18 inches in diameter at breast height, respectively. The new trees will be incorporated into the landscaping plan for the parking lot and placed within one-half mile of the site,no closer than 20 feet from the travel way. and no closer than four(4)feet above the travel wad in areas containing embankments. Mitigations Mitigation incorporated into project for special- in section status plant species: IV(a): BI0-1. Focused plant surveys for each species listed Prior to start of construction, surveys in Planning Operations and/or in Table IV(1) shall be conducted prior to initial the project area will be conducted. If Planning(Resource ground breaking to determine the species' presence any special status plant species are Mgmt Specialist) or absence in areas that would be disturbed by found,areas supporting the species will construction and earth movement activities. If any be avoided where feasible. If a special- CDFG(if required) special status plant species are found,areas status plant specimen and its required supporting the species shall be avoided, where habitat conditions are found within the feasible. Work shall not start if a special-status plant impact area a plan detailing on-site specimen and its required habitat conditions are mitigation will be developed based on found within the impact area while a plan detailing consultation with CDFG. Construction on-site mitigation is developed based on consultation work will not start until such plan has 2of8 Verification Who will Department Number Mitigation Timing (Date& � verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) with CDFG. Construction work may start once such been approved by CDFG. plan has been approved by CDFG. Mitigation incorporated into project for special- status animal species—Cooper's and sharp- shinned hawks: BIO-2. The three to four month construction period Pre- construction surveys will be Planning Operations and/or for each project component would occur between the conducted by a qualified biologist after Planning(Resource months of April and October due to County breeding season has begun and no more Mgmt Specialist) restrictions on the timing of earthwork operations than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the and thus would overlap the raptor breeding season project area. If nests of these species are (April through August).Therefore, pre-construction found,noise-generating construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist activity will be postponed within '/4 mile after breeding season has begun and no more than 30 of the nest until the young birds have days prior to construction to determine if raptors are fledged. nesting in the project area.If nests of these species are found, no noise-generating construction activities shall occur within 'Amile of the nest. Activities will be postponed until all young are fledged. Mitigation incorporated into project for special- status animal species—Migratory bird species: BI0-3. The three to four month construction period If suitable avian nesting trees are Planning Operations and/or for each project component would occur between the proposed for removal during the Planning(Resource breeding season, a qualified biologist months of April and October due to County g q g Mgmt Specialist) restrictions on the timing of earthwork operations will conduct pre-construction nesting and thus would overlap the migratory bird breeding bird surveys within 30 days of the onset of any construction activity. If bird season(April through August). If suitable avian nests are observed, an appropriate nesting trees are proposed for removal during the buffer zone will be established around breeding season,a qualified biologist should conduct all active nests. Removal of trees,snags, pre-construction nesting bird surveys within 30 days or woody shrubs with identified avian of the onset of any construction activity. The nests will be postponed until all young 3 of 8 i Who will Deportment Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or AgeneV Consultation Initials) preconstruction survey should search all trees and are fledged. snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than 8 feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed,an appropriate buffer zone will be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. Removal of trees, snags,or woody shrubs with identified avian nests shall be postponed until all young are fledged. Mitigation incorporated into protect for special- status animal species—San Francisco duskv- footed woodrat: BIO-4. A qualified biologist shall conduct San A qualified biologist will conduct Planning Operations and/or Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest surveys prior to surveys prior to initial ground breaking. Planning(Resource i initial ground breaking to determine the presence or If feasible,disturbance of nests will be Mgmt Specialist) absence of nests in areas that would be disturbed by avoided by routing the trail and by construction and earth movement activities. If staging construction-related equipment CDFG(if required) feasible, disturbance of woodrat nests shall be and materials away from known nest avoided by routing the trail and by staging sites. If avoidance of nests is not construction-related equipment and materials away feasible,CDFG will be consulted from known nest sites. If avoidance of San Francisco regarding the possibility of relocating dusky-footed woodrat nests is not feasible,CDFG the nests outside of the work area. will be consulted regarding the possibility of relocating the nests outside of the work area. Mitigations Mitigation incorporated into project for cultural in section resources: V(b): CULT4. Implementation of the following measure Verify that a qualified archaeological Planning Planning(Project will reduce potential impacts to cultural and monitor is present during Cultural Resources historical resources in the proposed driveway area, construction of the access road. Specialist) including buried and unknown archeological, paleontological,and human remains,to a less-than- 4of8 I Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) significant level: • Due to the observation of one isolated lithic artifact and two potential lithic artifacts within the vicinity of the proposed driveway, all initial ground disturbance activities during construction of the driveway shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological professional. If cultural and/or historical resources are encountered during construction,the measures outlined in CULT-2 shall be followed. Mitigation incorporated into proiect for cultural resources- CULT-2. Implementation of the following measure Verify that a qualified archaeological Planning Planning(Project will reduce potential impacts to cultural and monitor is present during construction Cultural Resources historical resources in the proposed driveway area, of the access road. Specialist) including buried and unknown archeological, paleontological,and human remains,to a less-than- significant level: • If cultural and/or historical resources are If cultural and/or historical resources Planning Planning(Project encountered during construction,every are encountered during construction, Cultural Resources reasonable effort shall be made to avoid the work will stop within 50 feet of the find Specialist) resources. Work shall stop within 50 feet of until a qualified cultural and/or the find until a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert can assess historical resources expert can assess the the significance of the find. significance of the find. • A reasonable effort will be made by the A reasonable effort to protect the find Planning Operations(Field and District to avoid or minimize harm to the will be made until significance is Ranger staff) discovery until significance is determined determined and an appropriate and an appropriate treatment can be treatment can be identified and identified and implemented. Methods to implemented. protect finds include fencing and covering 5of8 i Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency=Consultation Initials) remains with protective material such as culturally sterile soil or plywood. • If vandalism is a threat, 24-hour security If vandalism is determined a threat, 24- Planning Operations(Field and shall be provided. hour security will be provided. Ranger staff) • Construction operations outside of the find location can continue during the significance evaluation period and while mitigation for cultural and/or historical resources is being carried out,preferably with a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert monitoring any subsurface excavations. • If a resource cannot be avoided, a qualified If a resource cannot be avoided, a Planning Planning(Project cultural and/or historical resources expert qualified cultural and/or historical Cultural Resources will develop an appropriate Action Plan for resources expert will develop an Specialist) treatment to minimize or mitigate the adverse appropriate Action Plan. Construction effects. The District will not proceed with activities will not occur within 100 feet construction activities within 100 feet of the of the find until the Action Plan has find until the Action Plan has been reviewed been reviewed and approved. and approved. • The treatment effort required to mitigate the The recovery effort will be detailed in a Planning Planning(Project inadvertent exposure of significant cultural professional report in accordance with Cultural Resources and/or historical resources will be guided by current professional standards.Any Specialist) a research design appropriate to the non-grave associated artifacts will be discovery and potential research data curated with an appropriate repository. inherent in the resource in association with suitable field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current professional standards.Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. • Project construction documents shall include A requirement that project personnel Planning Planning(Project 6of8 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Tinting (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) a requirement that project personnel shall not shall not collect cultural and/or Cultural Resources collect cultural and/or historical resources historical resources encountered during Specialist) encountered during construction. This construction will be incorporated into measure is consistent with federal guideline project construction documents. 36 CFR 800.13(a)for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Mitigation Mitigation incorporated into proiect for cultural in section resources: V(d) CULT-3. If human remains are uncovered during If human remains are uncovered during Planning Operations(Field and project construction,the District will immediately project construction,the District will Ranger staff)and/or halt work,contact the San Mateo County Coroner to immediately halt work,contact the San Planning(Project evaluate the remains,and follow the procedures and Mateo County Coroner to evaluate the Cultural Resources protocols set forth in §15064.5(e)of the CEQA remains. Caltrans' Cultural Resource Specialist) Guidelines(California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Studies Office,District 4,shall also be Division 6,Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). The contacted immediately. District will immediately notify the California San Mateo County (if Department of Transportation Cultural Resource The County Coroner will make a required) Studies Office,District 4 at(510)286-5618. No determination of origin and disposition further disturbance of the site,the area within 50 within two working days from the time Native American feet of the site,or any nearby area reasonably the Coroner is notified of the discovery. Heritage Commission suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur (if required) until the County Coroner has made a determination If the remains are determined to be of origin and disposition, which shall be made within Native American,the Coroner will two working days from the time the Coroner is notify the Native American Heritage notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours, and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public which will determine and notify the Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are Most Likely Descendant(MLD). determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission Within 48 hours of notification,the (NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and MLD may recommend the means of notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The treating or disposing of,with MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their appropriate dignity,the human remains notification by the NAHC the means of treating or and grave goods. In the event of disposing of,with appropriate dignity, the human difficulty locating a MLD or failure of remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty the MLD to make a timely 7of8 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a recommendation,the human remains timely recommendation,the human remains and and grave goods shall be reburied with grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate appropriate dignity on the property in a dignity on the property in a location not subject to location not subject to further further subsurface disturbance. subsurface disturbance. The mitigation under section V(b)calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for disturbance of human remains. 8of8 t Regzanal OpenSpace ( Midpeninsula Regmnal Open Space(District MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve San Mateo County, CA October 6, 2009 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 650-691-1200 Table of Contents 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION--------------------------------------------lFINDINGS AND BASIS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION � � ------------------3 � MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT ......................................................................''.3 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION -------'------'--'----------------..h INITIAL STUDY ------------------------------------------------..6 REVIEW PERIOD ----------------------'-------------------------.6 CONTACTPERSON ----------------------------------------------..6 ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION-------------------------------------------..J ! SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS_________________--------------------------../V � -----------------------------------------.9 � ----------------------------------.Ii � FIGURE 2: STAGING AREA COMPONENT \2 � --------------------------------- FIGURE 3: PROJECT MAP -----------------------------------------.—\3 FIGURE 4: TRAIL CROSSING APPROXIMATE LOCATION MAP --------------------'l4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: -----------------------.l5 ----------------------------------------'-----' INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: --------------'l6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ----------------------------------------]7 � � l AESTHETICS --------------------------------------------'l7 � 01. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ----------------------------------.25 JDL AIR QUALITY--------------------------------------------.26 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES------------------------------------..32 l^ Special Status Plant Species---------------------------------'—.32 � � 2. S12ccial Status Animal Species----------------------------------.33 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES------------'------------------------.4O VI- GEOLOGY AND SOILS ---------------------------------------44 `WL` ------------------------'—.48 n&0l -----------------------------53 lX LAND USE AND PLANNING------------------------------------57 X. MINERAL RESOURCES-------------'---------------.--------..6O � � XI. NOISE...................................................................................................................................................6l � XII= POPULATION AND HOUSING----------------------------------.64 � | � / XI{I. PUBLIC SERVICES ---'--------------------------------------65 � XIV. RECREATION--------------------------.—'---------------.66 � XV, -----------------------------------68 � XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-------------------------------72 � � XVD. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE-------------------------..74 � | i � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A notice,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as amended(Public Resources Code 21,000, et seq.)that the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District proposes to determine that the El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project(Project),when implemented,will not have a significant impact on the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the construction of a new 65-vehicle, four-horse trailer parking and staging area at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve(Preserve),a 0.25-mile connector trail,a 1.75-mile perimeter trail,a 0.2-mile trail realignment,and restoration of 0.7 miles of abandoned trail; installation of"No Parking"signs to remove approximately 40 roadside parking spaces on Skyline Boulevard;and relocation of an existing Skyline Boulevard trail/pedestrian crossing.. The proposed parking area would serve as the Preserve's first dedicated parking area. All current parking occurs along the Skyline Boulevard roadside or at a Caltrans vista point parking lot known as Skeggs Point Lot. The proposed trails would connect the new parking area to the existing trail system,enhance public access in the eastern part of the Preserve,and address erosion issues on an existing trail alignment. The"No Parking"signs would eliminate deficient roadside parking spaces with poor lines of sight and insufficient shoulder width. The purpose of relocating the roadway trail/pedestrian crossing would be to improve trail user and traffic safety as trail users travel between the Preserve and the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The proposed project components are described in more detail below: (1) A new paved parking lot for 65 vehicles and four horse trailers that includes: a. A large preserve entrance sign b. A two-stall,unisex,ADA-accessible,self-contained vault restroom facility c. Two ADA-accessible parking spaces(part of the 65 vehicles spaces) d. Two trailhead signboards with brochure holders e. A bicycle tire and hiking boot cleaning station £ Split-rail wood fencing g. A new 20-foot wide driveway entry h. Designating the Gate CM04 access road as a service road only(no public use) i. A series of bioretention basins where stormwater runoff is collected and allowed to percolate into the soil The parking lot will be constructed using earth-moving equipment such as a compact bulldozer and mini- excavator and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control from the District's Watershed Protection Program and Details and Specifications Guidelines. (2) A"connector"trail approximately five feet wide and 0.25 miles in length. This proposed trail connects the southwestern end of the new parking area to the Gordon Mill Trail. The trail travels along the upper reaches of the Preserve at a gentle grade,first going under the canopy of a mixed evergreen forest,then across an open grassy hillside,and finally again through mixed evergreen forest until reaching the trail junction. The trail will be constructed using small earth-moving equipment such as a compact bulldozer and mini-excavator at an average 10%gradient and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control from the District's Watershed Protection Program and Details and Specifications Guidelines. (3) Completion of the"perimeter"trail,three to five-feet wide and approximately 1.75 miles in length. This proposed trail traverses steep forested canyons of the upper northeastern reaches of the Preserve, beginning near the Gordon Mill trailhead and gradually descending and crossing numerous swales to first connect with the Steam Donkey Trail,then extending further south to connect with upper Springboard Trail. This trail would be designated as part of the regional Bay Area Ridge Trail(referenced as"BART" in the enclosed figures). The trail will cross approximately six ephemeral streams and one intermittent stream,requiring the installation of small diameter culverts,rock fords,and/or low puncheons. This trail I (4) A realignment of the Steam Donkey Trail,three to five-feet wide and approximate) 0.2 miles in length. Y g This trail will be constructed on moderate side slopes of 20 to 50%at a trail gradient between 5%and 10%and cross a mixed redwood and tanoak forest.The realignment will require one ephemeral stream crossing using a small culvert. The preferred alternative for the stream crossing is a culvert,but if field conditions change,a puncheon or rock ford would be considered. The realignment will allow for the closure and decommissioning of approximately 0.5 miles of existing steep and poorly drained trail,which will involve the removal of two culvert crossings across intermittent streams. An additional 0.2 miles of old logging roads and skid trails located within close vicinity will also be decommissioned and the native slope restored to the greatest extent possible. The work will be performed using small earth-moving equipment such as a compact bulldozer and mini-excavator at an average 10%gradient and incorporate best management practices for erosion control from the District's Watershed Protection Program and Details and Specifications Guidelines. (5) Installation of"No Parking Any Time"signs along Skyline Boulevard,between Swett Road and Bear Gulch Road East at key locations where roadside parking is deficient due to poor line of sight and inadequate clearances. Approximately 40 roadside parking spaces would be removed through this signage program. (6) Relocation of the Skyline Boulevard trail/pedestrian crossing from its current site near Preserve Gate CM04 to a new location approximately 1,000 feet south of Preserve Gate CM02 that offers longer sight distances that improve traffic and trail user safety. The relocation would include installation of signs and barriers to redirect visitors to the new crossing and to limit access through Preserve Gate CM04 to service vehicles only(no public access). The relocation work would also include construction of approximately 350 feet of new narrow trail and installation of new signs and stiles on either side of the roadway to connect to existing trail systems on the east and west of Skyline Boulevard. The crossing is important for continuity of the Bay Area Ridge Trail and connects trail users traveling between Huddart/Wunderlich County Parks and El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. This crossing also connects neighbors along the east side of Skyline Boulevard to the Preserve. (7) Construction of each project component will cover a three to four month period between the months of April and October due to County restrictions on the timing of earthwork operations. Construction operations and procedures would include: a. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days of construction. Discovery of nesting birds will result in the establishment of an appropriate buffer zone or postponement of construction activity until all young have fledged; b. Compliance with basic and enhanced control measures for construction emissions of PM 10 per the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guidelines; c. Minimizing removal of woody vegetation within 50 feet of active stream channels and installation of protective fencing around trees; d. Implementation of all applicable Best Management Practices from the District's Watershed ill Protection Program and Details and Specifications Guidelines; e. Best management practices to reduce the potential for release of construction-related fuels and other hazardous materials into the environment. Since 2004,the District has been working through a watershed protection program for the Preserve,upgrading roads and trails to improve drainage,reduce sedimentation,and improve water quality,so that the Preserve is able to accommodate projected visitor use while protecting the aquatic environment. Over the long term, functions I 2 and values of wetlands and other waters are expected to vastly improve due to the reduction in sediment entering aquatic ecosystems both within the project area and throughout the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed. FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Planning Department of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,based upon substantial evidence in the record,finds that: 1. The mitigation measures,as listed below and incorporated into the project,are adequate to mitigate the environmental effects to a less than significant level. 2. The project will not adversely affect agricultural resources,mineral resources,population and housing,and public services in that such impacts simply do not apply to the proposed project,given the rural,vegetated environment of the project,the low-intensity recreational uses that are associated with the project,and the minor construction disturbance expected by the project. 3. The project will not adversely affect land use or public services,based on project-specific factors that allow the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. 4. The project will not adversely affect air quality,aesthetics,geology&soils,hydrology and water quality, noise,recreation,or utilities and service systems based on project-specific factors that reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 5. The project will not adversely affect biological resources,cultural resources,hazards and hazardous materials, or traffic and transportation because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project has reduced the impacts to a less than significant level. 6. In addition,the project will not: • Create impacts that degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the project's fundamentally small scale,localized nature. • Create impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable,based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. • Create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly,based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore,the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has determined that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES incorporated into the project Mitigation AESTH-1.Replace trees that need to be removed,which are both larger than 12 inches in in Section diameter at breast height and located within 100 feet from Skyline Boulevard,at a 1:1 I(b): ratio using 5-gallon size redwood trees. Based on field analysis and the survey map prepared for the project,three trees have been identified that require replacement: one Douglas fir and two redwoods measuring 36,20 and 18 inches in diameter at breast height,respectively. The new trees will be incorporated into the landscaping plan for the parking lot. 3 Mitigation BIO-1. Focused plant surveys for each species listed in Table IV(I)shall be conducted prior in Section to initial ground breaking to determine the species' presence or absence in areas that IV(a): would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If any special- status plant species are found,areas supporting the species shall be avoided,where feasible. Work shall not start if a special-status plant specimen and its required habitat conditions are found within the impact area while a plan detailing on-site mitigation is developed based on consultation with CDFG. Construction work may start once such plan has been approved by CDFG. BIO-2. The three to four month construction period for each project component would occur between the months of April and October due to County restrictions on the timing of earthwork operations and thus would overlap the raptor breeding season(April through August). Therefore,pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist after breeding season has begun and no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the project area. If nests of these species are found,no noise-generating construction activities shall occur within '/4 mile of the nest. Activities will be postponed until all young are fledged. B1O-3. The three to four month construction period for each project component would occur between the months of April and October due to County restrictions on the timing of earthwork operations and thus would overlap the migratory bird breeding season (April through August). If suitable avian nesting trees are proposed for removal during the breeding season,a qualified biologist should conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys within 30 days of the onset of any construction activity. The pre- construction survey should search all trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than S feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed,an appropriate buffer zone will be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. Removal of trees,snags,or woody shrubs with identified avian nests shall be postponed until all young are fledged. BI04. A qualified biologist shall conduct San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest surveys prior to initial ground breaking to determine the presence or absence of nests in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If feasible, disturbance of woodrat nests shall be avoided by routing the trail and by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from known nest sites. If avoidance of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests is not feasible,CDFG will be consulted regarding the possibility of relocating the nests outside of the work area. Mitigation CULT-1. Implementation of the following measure will reduce potential impacts to cultural and in Section historical resources in the proposed driveway area, including buried and unknown V(b): archeological,paleontological,and human remains,to a less-than-significant level: • Due to the observation of one isolated lithic artifact and two potential lithic artifacts within the vicinity of the proposed driveway,all initial ground disturbance activities during construction of the driveway shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological professional. If cultural and/or historical resources are encountered during construction,the measures outlined in CULT-2 shall be followed. CULT-2. Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to cultural and historical resources,including buried and unknown archeological,paleontological,and human remains, to a less-than-significant level: • If cultural and/or historical resources are encountered during construction,every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid the resources. Work shall stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert can assess the 4 • A reasonable effort will be made by the District to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented.Methods to protect finds include fencing and covering remains with protective material such as culturally sterile soil or plywood. • If vandalism is a threat, 24-hour security shall be provided. • Construction operations outside of the find location can continue during the significance evaluation period and while mitigation for cultural and/or historical resources is being carried out,preferably with a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert monitoring any subsurface excavations. • If a resource cannot be avoided,a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert will develop an appropriate Action Plan for treatment to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects.The District will not proceed with construction activities within 100 feet of the find until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved. • The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural and/or historical resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current professional standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. • Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect cultural and/or historical resources encountered during construction. This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a)for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Mitigation CULT-3. If human remains are uncovered during project construction,the District will in Section immediately halt work,contact the San Mateo County Coroner to evaluate the V(d): remains,and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in§15064.5(e)of the CEQA Guidelines(California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Division 6,Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). No further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition,which shall be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. The mitigation under section V(b)calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made,which will also reduce the potential for disturbance of human remains. Mitigation HAZ-1. All equipment to be used during construction must have an approved spark arrestor. in Section VII(h): HAZ-2. Cut grass and reduce fuels around construction sites where vehicles are allowed to park. HAZ-3. Minimize use of mechanical construction equipment during hot,dry,windy weather. 5 HAZ-4. Hired contractors shall be required to: i) Provide water to suppress potential fires caused by the work performed. ii) Remind workers that smoking is prohibited at the work site and on any District land per contract conditions and District Ordinance. iii) Maintain working ABC fire extinguishers on all vehicles in the work area. iv) Contact both Mountain View Dispatch at(650)968-4411 and the California Department of Forestry,Skylonda, at(650)851-1860 for emergency response in the event of a fire(these numbers are to report emergencies only), RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION California Department of Fish and Game(also a Trustee Agency) California Department of Transportation San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Mateo County U.S.Army Corps of Engineers INITIAL STUDY A copy of the initial study is attached. REVIEW PERIOD The Review Period is October 6,2009 through November 6, 2009. If you have any comments about the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration or Initial Study,have information that should be included,and/or disagree with the findings of our study as set forth in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,please submit your comments in writing no later than 5 p.m. on October 27,2009 to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,CA 94022. CONTACT PERSON Tina Hugg,Open Space Planner 11,650-691-1200 Ana Ruiz,Planning Manager' Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 6 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District INITIAL STUDY Project title: El Corte de Madera Creek Staging Area and Trails Project Lead agency name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District) 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos,CA 94022 Contact person and phone number: Tina Hugg,(650)691-1200 Project location: The project is situated in and adjacent to El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve),a 2,817-acre public preserve located in unincorporated San Mateo County, adjacent to the Town of Woodside,generally west of Skyline Boulevard(Highway 35), between Star Hill Road and Bear Gulch Road East. The project area encompasses a new 65-car,four-horse trailer parking lot,2.0 miles of new trail,0.2 miles of trail realignment, decommissioning 0.7-miles of abandoned trail and old logging roads,installation of"No Parking"signs along Skyline Boulevard,and relocation of a Skyline Boulevard trail/pedestrian crossing. Project APN: 072-320-200(parking lot);072-320-320(trail improvements); 072-320-160 and 072-320- 210("No Parking"signs on Skyline Boulevard);072-320-160(trail/pedestrian crossing) Project sponsor's name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,CA 94022 General plan Timber Production, Zoning: Timberland Preserve District(TPZ), designation: General Open Space Resource Management District(RM) Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the project,and any secondary,support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation.Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The general location of the project is shown in Figure 1. The proposed parking area would serve as the Preserve's first dedicated parking area. All current parking occurs along the Skyline Boulevard roadside or at a Caltrans vista point parking lot known as Skeggs Point Lot. A diagram showing the features of the parking component is included in Figure 2. The proposed trails would connect the new parking area to the existing trail system,enhance public access in the eastern part of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve(Preserve), and address erosion issues on an existing trail alignment. The location of the proposed trails is shown in Figure 3. The"No Parking"signs would eliminate deficient roadside parking spaces with poor lines of sight and insufficient clearances. The new roadway trail/pedestrian crossing location would have greater sight distances to improve trail user and traffic safety; its approximate location is shown in Figure 4. The proposed project components are explained in more detail below: 1. A new parking area for 65 vehicles and four horse trailers that includes: a. A large preserve entrance sign b. A two-stall, unisex,ADA-accessible, self-contained vault restroom facility c. Two ADA-accessible parking spaces(part of the 65 vehicles spaces) d. Two trailhead signboards with brochure holders e. A bicycle tire and hiking boot cleaning station £ Split-rail wood fencing 7 g. A new 20-foot wide driveway entry h. Designating the Gate CM04 access road as a service road only(no public use) i. A series of bioretention basins where stormwater runoff is collected and allowed to percolate into the soil The parking lot will be constructed using earth-moving equipment such as a compact bulldozer and mini- excavator and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control from the District's Watershed Protection Program and Details and Specifications Guidelines. 2. A"connector"trail approximately five feet wide and 0.25 miles in length. This proposed trail connects the southwestern end of the new parking area to the Gordon Mill Trail. The trail travels along the upper reaches of the Preserve at a gentle grade, first going under the canopy of a mixed evergreen forest,then across an open grassy hillside,and finally again through mixed evergreen forest until reaching the trail junction. The trail will be constructed using small earth-moving equipment such as a compact bulldozer and mini- excavator at an average 10%gradient and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control. 3. Completion of the"perimeter"trail,three to five-feet wide and approximately 1.75 miles in length. This proposed trail traverses the steep forested canyons of the upper northeastern reaches of the Preserve, beginning near the Gordon Mill trailhead and gradually descending and crossing numerous swales to first connect with the Steam Donkey Trail,then extending further south to connect with upper Springboard Trail. This trail would be designated as part of the regional Bay Area Ridge Trail. The trail will cross approximately six ephemeral streams and one intermittent stream,requiring the installation of small diameter culverts,rock fords,and low puncheons. This trail contours across 20 to 75%sideslopes and crosses a variety of habitats, including Douglas fir-redwood forest,redwood stands,and California bay- tanoak forest. The trail will be constructed using small earth-moving equipment such as a compact bulldozer and mini-excavator at an average 10%gradient and incorporate best management practices for erosion control. 4. A realignment of the Steam Donkey Trail,three to five-feet wide and approximately 0.2 miles in length. This trail will be constructed on moderate side slopes of 20 to 50%at a trail gradient between 5 and 10% and cross a mixed redwood and tanoak forest.The realignment will require one ephemeral stream crossing using a small culvert,low puncheon,or rock ford. This realignment will allow for the closure and decommissioning of approximately 0.5 miles of existing steep and poorly drained trail,which will involve the removal of two culvert crossings across intermittent streams. An additional 0.2 miles of old logging roads and skid trails located within close vicinity will also be decommissioned and the native slope restored to the greatest extent possible. 5. Installation of"No Parking Any Time"signs along Skyline Boulevard,between Swett Road and Bear Gulch Road East at key locations where roadside parking is deficient due to poor line of sight and inadequate clearances. Approximately 40 roadside parking spaces would be removed through this signage program. 6. Relocation of the Skyline Boulevard trail/pedestrian crossing from its current site near Preserve Gate CM04 to a new location approximately 1,000 feet south of Preserve Gate CM02 that offers longer sight distances that improve traffic and trail user safety. The relocation would include installation of signs and barriers to redirect visitors to the new crossing and to limit access through Preserve Gate CM04 to service vehicles only (no public access). The relocation work would also include construction of approximately 350 feet of new narrow trail and installation of new signs and stiles on either side of the roadway to connect to existing trail systems on the east and west of Skyline Boulevard. The crossing is important for continuity of the Bay Area Ridge Trail and connects trail users traveling between Huddart/Wunderlich County Parks and El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. This crossing also connects neighbors along the east side of Skyline Boulevard to the Preserve. 8 7. Construction of each project component will take place over a three to four month period between the months of April and October due to County restrictions on the timing of earthwork operations and thus would overlap the raptor and migratory bird breeding seasons. Construction operations and procedures would include: a. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days of construction. Discovery of nesting birds will result in the establishment of an appropriate buffer zone or postponement of construction activity until all young have fledged; b. Compliance with basic and enhanced control measures for construction emissions of PM 10 per the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guidelines; c. Minimizing removal of woody vegetation within 50 feet of active stream channels and installation of protective a fencing around trees; d. Implementation of all applicable Best Management Practices from the District's Watershed Protection Program and Details and Specifications Guidelines; e. Best management practices to reduce the potential for release of construction-related fuels and other hazardous materials into the environment. Since 2004,the District has been working through a watershed protection program for the Preserve,upgrading roads and trails to improve drainage,reduce sedimentation,and improve water quality, so that the Preserve is able to accommodate projected visitor use while protecting the aquatic environment. Over the long term, functions and values of wetlands and other waters are expected to vastly improve due to the reduction in sediment entering aquatic ecosystems both within the project area and throughout the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed. A detailed project description is on file at the District's administrative office. SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS Upon District Board certification of this negative declaration,the following actions will occur: 1. Application for California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit for Parking Lot ingress/egress and installation of No Parking signs 2. Application for San Mateo County Grading and Building Permit for a New Parking Lot and Trail Improvements 3. Application for California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) Streambed Alteration Permits. 4. Application for Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) 5. Application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Q g Y 6. Enter into a trail easement agreement with California Water Service Company to relocate the Skyline Boulevard pedestrian/trail crossing 7. Release of bid package,bid opening,Board of Directors authorization for award of bid 8. Construction of the project Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The project is located within and adjacent to El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve,a 2,817-acre preserve owned and managed by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,containing more than 35 miles of predominantly multiple-use(hiking,mountain biking,and equestrian use)trails. The Preserve is located in unincorporated San Mateo County,adjacent to the limits of the Town of Woodside along Skyline Boulevard (Highway 35),between Star Hill Road and Bear Gulch Road East. 9 The project is bounded to the north by Skyline Boulevard and its right of way,and beyond by Wunderlich County Park,California Water Service watershed lands,and the Bear Gulch Road East neighborhood. The remainder of the project lies within the 2,817-acre Preserve. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits,financing approval,or participation agreement.) i • California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Permit • California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit • Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board • San Mateo County Grading and Building Permit Document availability: All documents referenced in the Initial Study are available for review from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District administrative office at the address listed above. 10 San Fra 6— LYalershcd lands Hsi •[dgrw.nd 'Nool Cuunly Park r ir. Bav A' fludeigb 0r 51a1s•Park Golden Gate National R--Iiun A— 1�ryT H.ddart Woodside ��'1•!, �^ Cr"A 0—ty Park Mro f n yl� 0p! 1Alt Kd. (alifnrnia Water Smice Co. r J El Corte de w.ndPrrrh Madera Creel( C—ty Park Open Space and Porto l Prelierve — Spare vlllv1 Pull— Project Location `a r i M, 1,41 Hamm CPFek InruaR llaNck AI - Midpeninsula Regional Lr, Honda Open Space District ... Boundary w sphere of influence of the I—,Mr lynnnld .%cipenienula Rrgi—1 Open Space Dislricl Crnmly Park ------ C—My Buundarirs M Gale:road closed ® MROSO Offices - Midprnin%ula Regional Open Spa(P District pre%pnv% San.Male.County Major oily,a ounly,and slate park%,open%pa(P Memorial Park preserves,and publicly owned watershed lands Private w•alenhcd,6 1 trust,and mademic lands Pascader.Creek County Park 11 1 t O N Scale in Miles Figure 1: Regional Location Map Il I i ! � J Figure 2: Staging Area Component 12 vc El Corte de Madera Creek California ater Ser Ice o any Proposed Staging Area and Trail Improvements ——— Proposed Nm Trail ...... Proposed Trail ReAfigmiw.4 4 Proposed Trail Closwe mid F Restoration A — Exisling NmrLA,Trail 0 "elicopiler Landing Zo, . ------ T a ropmedi A District Rewlew, 0 Preserve Gate ing Area —Minor I JnTwed ROM Minor Pawd ROM I- % Wunderfich County Park —Highway 35 Dls4ml Preserve CXlw Pt"ic Open Walers1wd land N4 Ita a El Corte de Madera % Creek Redwoods %Open Space Preserve cW 5 0 W5 Scale 1 11 000 e Oil El Corte de Madera Creek Potential BART Crossing O Proposed Bay Area Ridge Trail Segment Proposed Connecting Trail �y y Proposed Steam Donkey Trai I rrA • Meth elate ree Potential BART Crossing Realignment CMO Proposed Trail Closure and O �J18U`�E!/ate Decommissioning Proposed Conversion to Service .a Road;No Public Access �o Line-of-Sight Corridor Helicopter Landing Zone `\ �,.� District Employee Residence W r* p Preserve Gate Existing Narrow Trail El Corte' de Madera Minor Unpaved Road o Creek Open Space Preserve • 03 cn 1N r Trail ` 'w + \ Trail •��������•`114 � r 1' 0 250 500 750 1.000 iYl� i Fee[ � -e ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics [JAgriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning OMineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ORecreation ❑Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Z11 10/06/09 Si tune Date Ana Ruiz,PlanninfManager Midneninsula Regional Open Space District Printed Name For 15 INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less Than Significant Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier Analyses,"as described in(5) below,may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used.Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures.For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances).Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources:A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats;however,lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question and b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. 16 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Less Than I. AESTHETICS Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation Would the project: I(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ (9 ❑ Explanation: (Sources: 4, 5,6). The project is located in the 2,817-acre El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve(Preserve)approximately 2,100 feet above mean sea level at the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains,and about four miles west of Woodside, San Mateo County,California. The project includes an asphalt,65-car, four-equestrian trailer space parking lot with a self-contained,vault restroom facility and a staging area; a driveway leading to the parking lot; approximately 2.2 miles of new narrow trail(including a 0.2-mile trail realignment); the closure and decommissioning of approximately 0.7 miles of existing steep trail; installation of "No Parking"signs to remove approximately 40 roadside parking spaces on Skyline Boulevard;and relocation of the Skyline Boulevard trait/pedestrian crossing. A new trail segment within the Preserve will connect the new parking lot to the junction of the Gordon Mill Trail, Sierra Morena Trail,and new Bay Area Ridge Trail. The connecting trail will traverse mixed evergreen forest and grassland and provide access to one of the most prominent viewpoints in the Preserve. At five to six feet wide near the parking lot,the trail will not have an adverse effect on the viewpoint itself. The trail's width and orientation along a natural contour line will prevent it from being visible outside the immediate vicinity,so it will not have a significant impact on views lookinginto the Preserve. The new Bay Area Ridge Trail and g P Y realignment of Steam Donkey Trail will traverse a variety of habitats, including Douglas fir-redwood forest, redwood stands,and California bay-tanoak forest. The trails will be constructed to be three to six feet wide. The steep topography and dense surrounding vegetation will restrict views within the project area to the trail corridors and the immediate surroundings. These factors will also prevent views into the project area from surrounding locations. These new trails will therefore have a less than significant impact on views within or into the Preserve. Potentiall Less Than Less Than y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation I(b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not X limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Explanation: (Sources: 1 through 6, 8 through 13). Skyline Boulevard is designated as a State Scenic Highway and County Scenic Corridor. The mixed-evergreen forest landscape along Skyline Boulevard extends throughout much of the corridor,particularly in areas north of the Highway 84 intersection and south of the Page Mill Road intersection. The parking lot is located on a flat,previously disturbed one acre site,approximately 25 feet higher in elevation and 100 feet from the edge of Skyline Boulevard. Prior to District ownership,the site was cleared for use as a logger's campground during past timber harvest operations. The site is now overgrown with non-native invasive French broom and periwinkle and is surrounded by mixed-evergreen forest. The nearby Skyline Boulevard corridor(also known as Highway 35)is a two-lane paved road that is designated as a State Scenic Highway and County Scenic Corridor. The existing topography and surrounding vegetation limit views from both within and 17 outside of the parking lot site. Views are constrained to the immediate surrounding foreground and to the driveway that connects the parking lot to Skyline Boulevard. The topography and vegetation will serve to screen the parking lot from the view of motorists traveling on Skyline Boulevard. In addition,at least 200 feet of thick,vegetated buffer exist between the parking lot and two nearby residential properties: about 100 feet between the site and the roadway and another 100 feet between the roadway and the closest house. The two nearest residences are located 250 to 500 feet north of the proposed parking lot,across from Skyline Boulevard and about 25 to 50 feet below the roadway,with views oriented away from the project area. The parking lot site is located another 25 feet above the roadway. A District owned residence is located approximately 300 feet southeast from the proposed parking lot and is buffered from it by dense,forested vegetation. The parking lot will therefore not have a significant adverse effect on the views from Skyline Boulevard or nearby residences. Fx. � OL �. AA f 4 El Coi a de Mae z rien Sparese V , arSger e _ 0 50 100 200 700 400 100 Feet Figure 1: Staging Area and Surrounds A paved driveway will connect the parking lot to Skyline Boulevard. The majority of the driveway is laid out along the alignment of an existing interior unpaved access road that is surrounded and screened from Skyline Boulevard by mixed-evergreen forest. The existing topography and surrounding vegetation will limit views from the driveway to the immediate foreground. The portion of the driveway that will run parallel to Skyline Boulevard will not be visible from the roadway or the nearby residences. Approximately 75 feet of the driveway that connects the parking lot to Skyline Boulevard will be visible from both the roadway and a private driveway located on the opposite side of the roadway. The parking lot's driveway will intersect Skyline Boulevard perpendicularly and its narrow 20-foot width and Caltrans standard flared connection will have a minimal 18 i footprint. Common views along Skyline Boulevard include overhead utility lines,private paved driveways, paved road intersections,pullouts,mailbox clusters,fencing,gates,and residences. Though portions of the driveway,a standard District gate,and preserve signage will be visible from Skyline Boulevard,these improvements will not be vivid elements in the overall setting and are typical of what is already commonly found along the roadway corridor. The driveway and miscellaneous roadside furnishings will thus have a less than significant impact on views from Skyline Boulevard and nearby residences. r i!• �rti � 1 � � a� f Figure 2: Typical District Gate, Fence, Stile,and Signagc W45 N`b PARKING W 54A YP Figure 3: Typical Roadway Signagc g 19 I Proposed"No Parking Any Time"signs and the relocated pedestrian crossing will be visible to motorists traveling on Skyline Boulevard. The signs will be installed along Skyline Boulevard between Swett Road and Bear Gulch Road East,at up to ten locations where roadside parking is deficient due to poor lines of sight,and inadequate,narrow shoulder widths. The sign design and installation will follow Caltrans standards. The elements of the relocated pedestrian crossing will include"Trail Crossing"signs,stiles,and approximately 350 feet of new,narrow trail,most of which will be below and out of sight of the roadway. The trail as it connects to the Skyline Boulevard will be perpendicular to it,and its narrow width will result in a minimal visible footprint. The"No Parking Any Time"and"Trail Crossing"signs and connecting trail will not be vivid elements in the Skyline Boulevard corridor. They will therefore have a less than significant impact on views from Skyline Boulevard. Construction of the parking lot driveway will require the removal of three large trees within the Scenic Corridor: two redwoods and one Douglas fir. The Douglas fir is approximately 36 inches in diameter measured at breast height;the two redwoods are between 18 and 20 inches in diameter measured at breast height. These trees are typical of the surrounding vegetation and of mixed evergreen forests found in the canyons and east-facing slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The trees to be removed are not landmark trees under the terms of the San Mateo County tree protection ordinance,nor do they form a distinctive group. Up to as many as 24 small trees, between four and twelve inches in diameter,may also be removed. 1 F) Tq� IM1`lHi 1 =+Vie•� �` I � � I I Figure 4: Plan Showing Large Trees to be Removed along Scenic Corridor 20 Figure 5: Large Trees 1 be Removed 1 I 1 1 (third tree obscured 1leftmost Ab Figure i 1 Roadway EnviI Proposed I be removed shown in yellow, 1 tree obscured) Views of the driveway will be limited to the 20-foot wide,75-foot long section perpendicular to Skyline Boulevard,which will be visible only momentarily to motorists traveling on the roadway. The visible segment of the driveway will be similar to the other commonly existing residential and commercial driveways located in the forested areas off Skyline Boulevard. Views of the remaining length of driveway and the parking lot will be obscured by the topography and surrounding vegetation. Because the parking lot and driveway are screened from view so that most of the vehicles and pavement are not visible from the roadway,Appendix E of Caltrans Scenic Highway Guidelines provides that they constitute only,a minor visual intrusion on the scenic qualities of the roadway. There are no unique or massive rock formations,historic buildings,or other-scenic resources in the parking lot site or along the driveway alignment. The new connecting trail, Ridge Trail, Steam Donkey realignment,and relocated pedestrian crossing will pass near interesting rock outcroppings,groves of scenic trees,and/or vista points. The new trails will allow the public to access and enjoy these visual resources,thus providing a public benefit. The narrow three-to five-foot wide trails will be constructed so as to not damage these scenic resources through avoidance, e.g. routing the trail around large trees,minimal grading,and following natural contours to the greatest extent possible. Two to four trees exceeding the 12-inch diameter(38-inch circumference)threshold of the County's Significant Tree Ordinance may be harvested for on-site building materials to construct trail support. This would require a permit from the County. These trees are located in a densely vegetated area of the Preserve along a section of proposed trail that is remote and not visible from adjacent properties. The location is in the interior of the Preserve where access to building material is limited and technically difficult to transport in. In addition,the pruning of larger trees and the removal of small trees may be needed as part of the trail construction. Pruning will be done in accordance with District standard practices to minimize potential damage to trees and to meet the 12-foot high clearance requirements for multiple-use trails. Only if needed,trees less than 12 inches in diameter at breast height would be removed. These trees would be scattered across the trail corridor in an already heavily forested environment. Any small tree removal associated with the trail construction will occur in the interior of the Preserve, more than 100 feet from Skyline Boulevard. Impacts No heritage or protected tree or community of trees,as defined by San Mateo County,will be removed as a result of the project. San Mateo County defines significant trees as"any live woody plant rising above the ground with a single stem or trunk of a circumference of 38 inches or more measured at 4.5 feet vertically above the ground." Removal of significant trees within the Timberland Preserve Zone(TPZ)does not require a permit, unless the trees are located within 100 feet of a County or State scenic road or highway. The three large trees that will need to be removed to accommodate the driveway as described above are greater than 38 inches in circumference and considered significant trees due to their location within the County Scenic Corridor. Section 12000 of the County's Ordinance Code,The Significant Tree Ordinance of San Mateo County,requires the replacement of trees removed within the Skyline County Scenic Corridor at a 1:1 ratio using minimum 5-gallon size trees as a condition of approval for tree removal permits. The following is a list of allowable replacement trees: redwood,coast live oak,big leaf maple,black oak,California bay laurel,valley oak, Islay or wild cherry, or madrone. Mitigation incorporated into project: AESTH-1. Replace trees that need to be removed,which are both larger than 12 inches in diameter at breast height and located within 100 feet from Skyline Boulevard, at a 1:1 ratio using 5-gallon size redwood 22 trees. Based on field analysis and the survey map prepared for the project,three trees have been identified that require replacement: one Douglas fir and two redwoods measuring 36,20 and 18 inches in diameter at breast height,respectively. The new trees will be incorporated into the landscaping plan for the parking lot. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation I(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 L1x quality of the site and its surroundings? Explanation: (Sources: 5).The parking lot is located on a flat one acre previously disturbed site. The site is overgrown with non-native invasive French broom and periwinkle. The French broom is so thick that views in the project area are heavily constrained to the existing unpaved access road and to the mixed evergreen overstory that surrounds the parking lot site. As part of the project,the non-native plants will be eradicated and native plant and tree species will be used in the proposed landscaping. It is therefore expected that the project will actually improve the visual character of the site by opening up views in the parking lot and removing undesirable views of a thicket of non-native vegetation. The majority of the proposed driveway will be laid out along the alignment of an existing interior unpaved access road,which is partially surrounded by mixed-evergreen forest. The section of driveway that will connect perpendicularly to Skyline Boulevard requires the removal of three large trees and up to 24 small trees(see Section I(b)for more information). The required tree removal will not significantly impact the visual character of the site given the area's surrounding forest environment and abundant tree cover. See section I(b)for more information. The proposed"No Parking Any Time"and"Trail Crossing"signs and connecting trail associated with the pedestrian crossing will not be vivid elements in the Skyline Boulevard corridor. The signs will be in keeping with Caltrans standards,few in number,and similar in nature to those currently located along the roadway. The 350-foot long trail will connect to Skyline Boulevard perpendicularly,and its narrow width will result in a minimal visible footprint(see Section I(a)for more information). The"No Parking Any Time"and"Trail Crossing"signs and connecting trail will therefore not significantly impact the visual character of the site given the area's surrounding environment. The new connecting trail,Ridge Trail,and Steam Donkey realignment will be constructed according to District standards to,in part,minimize potential impacts on the visual character of the surrounding Preserve. The trails will be between three and six feet wide,and will generally follow natural contours. The trails will traverse and meander through mixed-evergreen forest. Trail construction may require the removal of small trees,but the meandering nature and narrow width of the trail will allow the District to avoid tree removal to the greatest extent possible. Only if needed,small trees(less than 12 inches in diameter at breast height)and up to 4 larger trees(exceeding 12 inches in diameter)would be removed and trees pruned to accommodate a narrow multiple- use trail. The installation of trail signs and small drainage structures(rocked fords,puncheons, and small culverts)will result in only localized changes that are not expected to significantly alter the scenic qualities of the trail or drainage corridors. The project's design ensures that man-made structures and construction materials will be visually compatible with typical District trail construction and the open space surroundings. The new trails will therefore result in less than significant impact the visual character of the site. 23 The abandoned steep section of Steam Donkey Trail will be closed and decommissioned to restore natural surface drainage flow and prevent further erosion. The decommissioned area will be partially re-contoured, fill within the drainages will be removed,and the disturbed surfaces will be mulched and/or re-seeded using native seed,which will have a positive effect on the visual character of the site. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation I(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which LJ LJx would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Explanation: (Sources: 5,7). The project does not include exterior lighting fixtures. The vault restroom facility will not include windows or other fixtures that may produce glare. Flat,non-reflective paint or integrated coloring that will blend with the characteristic landscape will be used in all exterior building materials associated with the restroom. District Ordinance 93-1, Section 805.2 prohibits the use of the Preserve by the public between one-half hour after sunset and sunrise. Preserve users and their vehicles that are parked in the parking lot will therefore vacate the premises by one-half hour after sunset,while still light,after which time the driveway entrance gate will be closed and locked to prevent vehicles from accessing the site when the Preserve is closed. The project will therefore not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Aesthetics Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County.Zoning Regulations.Chapter 34: Timberland Preserve Zone(TPZ)District,Section 6102.71.1 Skyline Area, 6325.1 Primary Scenic Resources Areas Criteria. July 1999. http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.tis/vpn/imaizes/Torta]Jcit 609/9441580Zregs-wppdf 2. Freyer and Laureta,Inc. El Corte de Madera Creek Staging Area Survey. June 14,2005. 3. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Details and Specifications Committee. Pruning Procedures Detail. December 17,2001. 4. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Updated 12-07-2007. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic highways/index.htm. Accessed on May 1,2008. 5. LFR Inc. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Improvements Plans. August 2007. 6. San Mateo County. General Plan. Chapter 4: Visual Quality Policies. 1986. 7. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No.93-I,July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No.04-01,August 25,2004. 8. California Department of Transportation.Scenic Highway Guidelines. Appendix E Parking Lots. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg[LandArch/scenic/guidelines/scenic hwy guidelines.pdf. Accessed on May 13,2008. 9. California Department of Transportation. Standard Environmental Reference. Chapter 27: Visual and Aesthetics Review. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol I/sec3/community/ch27via/ehap27via.htm#protect. Accessed on May 13,2008. 10. San Mateo County. San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Section 11000. Regulation of the Removal and Trimming of Heritage Trees.April 5, 1977. 11. San Mateo County. San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Section 12000. The Significant Tree Ordinance of San Mateo County.May 15, 1990. 12. San Mateo County. Application Form for Permit to Trim or Remove(Heritage Tree(s)or Significant Tree(c))and Recommended Species of Replacement Trees. May 10,2007. 13. San Mateo County.Zoning Maps.Sheet 27, May 1992 Edition. 24 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Less Than Would the project: Potentiall Significant Less Than p y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation 11(a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? 11(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 0 Williamson Act contract? 11(c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,which, 0 0 11 9 due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Explanations for a,b,and c: (Sources: 1, 2,3). The subject parcels(072-320-320,072-320-200,072-320-160, and 072-320-210)that would be affected by the project are part of a larger collection of land holdings totaling 2,817 acres that together create the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. This Preserve is managed for resource protection and ecologically sensitive public recreational use,in keeping with the District's mission state. No change in land management or use of the Preserve is proposed as part of this project. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps for the project vicinity indicate that no prime farmland,unique farmland,or farmland of statewide importance would be disturbed by the project. The properties are not under Williamson Act contracts. The project area is zoned Timberland Preserve Zone (TPZ). Allowable uses for TPZ Districts in San Mateo County include outdoor public recreation and development to support recreation. The parking component of the project aims to establish a formal parking lot for the Preserve to offer visitors a better parking alternative that does not require them to park on the roadside, in highway pullouts, or at an offsite Caltrans vista point rest stop. The trails component of the project will improve Preserve trail circulation and enhance the visitors' overall recreational experience. The relocated pedestrian crossing across Skyline Boulevard(also known as Highway 35)will provide a crossing location with better lines of sight,and the posting of"No Parking"signs will prevent parking along the roadway where shoulders are narrow and lines of sight are an issue. These changes will occur at and adjacent to a preserve that is already open to the public. The project does not conflict with the permitted land uses per the San Mateo Zoning Ordinance and will not involve or create changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland. Agricultural Resources Section Sources: 1. California Department of Conservation.Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps for San Mateo County. 2004. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dIr /f amp. 2. San Mateo County.Zoning Regulations. Chapter 34: Timberland Preserve Zone. July 1999. http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/aortal/cit 609/9441580Zregs=wwp.pdf 3. San Mateo County. Zoning Maps. Sheet 27. January 1, 1990. 25 III. AIR QUALITY Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Potentiall Less Than Less Than Would the project: Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation 11I(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? Potentiall Less Than Less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation III(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentiall Less Than Less Than Significant Y with Significan No Significan t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation lI1(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 11 X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions,which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Explanation: (Source: 1 through 11). Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants have been established by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and the California Air Resources Board(ARB). The EPA sets national standards for six criteria pollutants: ozone,particulate matter,carbon monoxide,nitrogen dioxide,sulfur dioxide,and lead. The EPA also oversees state air quality programs to meet these,standards. The ARB makes state area designations for ten criteria pollutants: ozone,suspended particulate matter(PM10), fine suspended particulate matter(PM2.5),carbon monoxide,nitrogen dioxide,sulfur dioxide, sulfates,lead, hydrogen sulfide,and visibility reducing particles. These standards represent levels of air quality considered to be safe with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health and safety. They are designed to protect "sensitive receptors,"those people who are most susceptible to further respiratory stress,such as asthmatics,the elderly,very young children,people already weakened by disease or illness,and people who are engaged in strenuous work or exercise. At a local and regional level,the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)regulates and monitors levels of air pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Basin(Bay Area)and the Bay Area's attainment status. Project The project is located in a 2,81 7-acre preserve approximately 2,100 feet above mean sea level at the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains,and about four miles west of Woodside, San Mateo County,California. The prevailing winds are from the west and average from 5 to 10 mph. The project includes an asphalt, 65-car, four-equestrian trailer space parking lot with a self-contained, vault restroom facility and a staging area; a driveway leading to the parking lot;approximately 2.2 miles of new narrow trail(including a 0.2-mile trail realignment);the closure p g PP Y ( g and decommissioning of approximately 0.5 miles of existing steep trail; installation of"No Parking"signs to remove approximately 40 roadside parking spaces on Skyline Boulevard;and relocation of the Skyline Boulevard trail crossing. Due to the anticipated short construction period of three to four months for each project component,the proposed control measures to be implemented,the projected low emissions generated by the parking lot,and the 26 I low amount of dust generated by the parking lot's asphalt surface and the Preserve's trail system,the project's construction and operations emissions are not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or produce levels of emissions that violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Construction The nature of particulates is that larger,coarser material settles out quickly and closer to the emission source whereas smaller particulates are in suspension for a longer period of time and are able to travel further. Due to the dense vegetative buffer and the discrete,small-scale area of the one acre parking lot construction zone,any potential dust emissions created by the project's construction activities would tend to remain more localized and limited to the short-term,three to four month construction period for each project component. The trail work is small-scale in nature as well,approximately one acre in size when its length and width are considered,so that any potential dust emissions resulting from the project would also be localized and limited to three to four month construction period for each project component. In addition,the proposed trail work corridor is narrow,the majority being three to five feet in width,and is primarily located within dense vegetation and tree canopy that would buffer the construction zone from winds. Due to the narrowness and inaccessibility of the trail work area,the number and size of construction equipment is limited and also small-scale in nature, reducing the level of potential dust emissions. Moreover,construction-related earthmoving activities that will occur during the daylight hours of summer will avoid the high PM10 levels generally recorded in the evening and night hours and during the winter,when increased use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces occur,cool temperatures, low wind speeds, low inversion layers, and high humidity favor the buildup of PM levels. In addition,the control measures listed below from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines will be implemented during construction to minimize PM emissions from both trail work and parking lot construction. Finally,as part of the project,mobile source control measures related to ozone precursor emissions will include limiting idling time for diesel powered construction equipment and limiting hours of operation for construction equipment. Measures Based on Basic and Enhanced Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 from BAAQMO 1999 CEQA Guidelines: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily where needed,based on site and ambient conditions,to reduce dust emissions. • Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave,apply water daily,or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites where needed,based on site and ambient conditions,to reduce dust emissions. • Sweep daily all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites if visible soil material is accumulating on surfaces. • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Enclose,cover,water daily or apply(non-toxic)soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt,sand,etc.) • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 27 • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds(instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 mph. Modeling Estimates for the proposed parking lot's construction and operational emissions(pounds per day)were prepared using two methods. The first was the ARB program named URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.4,which estimates the emissions that result from various land use development projects. The second is a spreadsheet,the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District(SMAQMD)'s Roadway Construction Emissions Model,Version 5.2,prepared by Jones&Stokes under the financial support and direction of SMAQMD. Both models were used for the emissions estimates of the proposed parking lot,so as to form as complete an estimate as possible. The two modeling methods overlap in the paving and grading components of the construction phase. Nevertheless,even added together,the estimated emissions for grading and paving are below BAAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG,NOx, and PM 10. Under both models,construction emissions from for ROG,NOx,and PM 10 were each found to be in the range of 3 to 40 pounds per day,well below 80 pounds per day,BAAQMD's thresholds of significance for these pollutants. Under the URBEMIS2007 model,operational emissions for ROG,NOx,and PM 10 were also each found to be less than 5 pounds per day, also below 80 pounds per day. Levels of CO emissions were estimated to be below BAAQMD's threshold of significance,and generation of SO2 and lead emissions is not anticipated. Operations Visitors reach the Preserve primarily through vehicular modes of transportation,as there is currently no mass transit system that provides access along its length and there are no present plans to provide such a system. Access via bike transportation is technically possible,but the steep routes and long distances required to reach Skyline Boulevard and the Preserve make this option less feasible and less likely compared to access by vehicle. Although the Preserve is primarily reached via personal vehicle,a significant increase in vehicular traffic and related emissions as a result of the project is not anticipated. The District's rangers and staff s historical experience is that the highest use of the Preserve occurs on the weekend. It is estimated that the maximum number of peak hour trips the parking lot would generate is 70 peak hour trips on the weekend,based on a June 2009 traffic analysis that used highway capacity methodology,parking analysis,and trip generation estimation. Traffic counts were conducted in the summer from 5:00 AM to 12:00 AM midnight over one weekend at the Skeggs Point parking lot which is currently used by visitors of the Preserve. Based on the traffic analysis of these counts,it is estimated that there will be a maximum of approximately 315 vehicle trips generated by the new parking lot per day on the weekend. Under the worst-case scenario used for analysis in this initial study,all of the trips generated by the parking lot would be new(in reality,some vehicles that currently park along the roadside would relocate to the lot,as the project includes removal of 40 roadside parking spaces along Skyline Boulevard due to unsafe parking conditions such as inadequate,narrow shoulder widths and poor lines of sights). Emissions modeling estimates that incorporate this maximum number of new vehicle trips indicate that operational emissions for ROG,NOx, and PM 10 are less than 5 pounds per day,below BAAQMD's threshold of significance of 80 pounds per day. For discussion of modeling results,refer to the Modeling section above. The type of uses in the Preserve,namely hiking,mountain biking,and horse-riding,generally require a long duration of stay,and thus generate a low turnover in parking. Due to the amount of emissions that are calculated to fall below BAAQMD's thresholds of significance and the minimal amount of dust that is generated by vehicles driving on asphalt surfacing,future use of the paved parking lot and driveway is not anticipated to conflict with applicable air quality plans,regulations,or programs. 28 The new trail alignments that are part of the project will be constructed per District trail standards at an average 10%grade with frequent grade reversals and an outsloped trail surface. The trail tread will be narrow,ranging from five to six feet nearest the parking lot to three to five feet elsewhere. These trails will largely traverse a mixed evergreen forest that is dominated by Douglas fir,redwood,and Tanoak,which will provide a source of forest duff on the trail surface to minimize soil exposure. In the Preserve itself,the proposed expansion of the Preserve's trail system is not anticipated to generate odors, dust,or other air pollutant emissions that conflict with the above applicable air quality plans,regulations,or programs. The project's proposed trail system does not involve an increase in motor vehicle operation within the Preserve itself. Operationally,the trails will attract non-motorized recreational uses such as hiking, mountain biking,and horse-riding,which do not produce emissions. In addition,as described in III(a),under District Ordinance 96-1,operation of motor vehicles by the public within the Preserve itself is prohibited,thus limiting motor vehicle emissions within the Preserve to ranger patrol and maintenance vehicles. However,no expansion of patrol levels would be required by the project. Maintenance work on the trail will be infrequent and limited to small-scale equipment and hand tools. Therefore,the project is not expected to significantly increase operational emissions within the Preserve and trail system itself. Due to the design and minimal footprint of the new trails,future use of the new trails is not anticipated to conflict with applicable air quality plans,regulations,or programs. In addition,the project's operations are not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation III(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant x concentrations? Explanation: (Sources: 3, 5, 8, 11).According to the BAAQMD,sensitive receptor groups include people who are most susceptible to further respiratory stress, such as asthmatics,the elderly,very young children,people already weakened by disease or illness,and people who are engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Such receptor groups are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of air pollutants. The ARB has indicated that a correlation has been found between the proximity of sensitive land uses(residences,schools,day care centers, playgrounds,or medical facilities)to specific air pollution sources(freeways,distribution centers,rail yards, ports,refineries,chrome plating facilities,dry cleaners,and gasoline dispensing facilities). Due to the projected short construction period of three to four months for each project component and given the nature of the project,namely a trail system and small-scale parking lot for an open space preserve whose uses will not be significant sources of emissions,it is expected that the project will not expose sensitive receptors or sensitive land uses to substantial pollutant concentrations. Individuals who are visiting the Preserve for recreation and exercise may be considered at a higher risk of suffering adverse health effects from the inhalation of minute dust particles classified as particulate matter, which are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest part of the lungs. However,since the project area would be closed to all public use during construction activities,persons recreating and exercising in the Preserve would be restricted from accessing the construction site and therefore would not be exposed to any potentially localized elevations of particulate matter levels. Dust emissions from construction activities can also affect properties adjacent to project sites. The nature of 29 particulates is that larger,coarser material settles out quickly and closer to the emission source whereas smaller particulates are in suspension for a longer period of time and are able to travel further. However,due to the vegetative buffer surrounding the construction zones,any potential dust emissions created by the project's construction activities would tend to remain more localized and limited to the short-term,three to four month construction period for each project component. A District owned residence is located approximately 300 feet southeast from the proposed parking lot and is buffered from it by dense, forested vegetation. Two residential properties are located approximately 250 to 500 feet north of the proposed parking lot,across from Skyline Boulevard. At least 200 feet of thick,vegetated buffer exist between the parking lot site and the two residential properties: about 100 feet between the site and the roadway and another 100 feet between the roadway and the closest house. In addition,the site is situated about 25 feet above the roadway and the closest houses are located between 25 and 50 feet below the roadway. Other properties are located over 500 to 1000 feet away from the project and with the dense,vegetated buffer,should not be significantly impacted by the construction activities. To address emissions from construction activities,control measures as listed above under III(a-e) from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines will be implemented during construction to minimize PM emissions from both the trail work and parking lot construction. Examples of control measures include watering active construction areas, limiting traffic speeds on unpaved roads,and limiting grading and excavating activity during periods of high wind gusts. In addition,mobile source control measures related to ozone precursor emissions will include limiting idling time for diesel powered construction equipment and limiting hours of operation for construction equipment. Thus,the project is not expected to have a significant construction impact on the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The parking lot's operational impact to sensitive receptors is expected to be insignificant as well due to the projected low emissions generated by the parking lot and the low amount of dust generated by the parking lot's asphalt surface and the Preserve's trail system. The projects proposed trail system does not involve an increase in motor vehicle operation within the Preserve itself. As described in III(a-c),motorized vehicles are prohibited under District ordinance except for ranger patrol and maintenance vehicles. No expansion of patrol levels would be required by the project and therefore, no increase in related emissions is expected within the trail system itself. Maintenance work on the trail will be infrequent and be limited to small-scale equipment and hand tools. Thus,the project is not expected to have a significant operational impact on the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation III(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 11 L1 11 x of people? Explanation: The intent of the trail work is to provide low-intensity,non-motorized recreational uses of the Preserve. These uses do not emit objectionable odors,and would not contribute to a significant impact. In addition,as described above in II1(a-c),due to the small-scale nature of the project area and projected low emissions generated,the parking lot is also not expected to create any objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition,construction activities for both the parking lot and the trail system will be localized and phased with each project component limited to a short-term,three to four month construction period. As described in III(d) public access to the construction site will be restricted and a wide,densely vegetated buffer exists between adjacent residential properties and the site. Operationally,only the self-contained,vault restroorn facility has the potential to generate odors. However,any 30 odors would not affect a substantial number of people,as the restroom's black ventilation stack is heated by the sun to draw potential odors up and out where they will dissipate. In the event that odors sink before dissipating, they would remain localized around and within the unit itself,and,from District Ranger staff experience with complaints,would not impact a substantial number of people in the Preserve or,on neighboring properties. Air Quality Section Sources: 1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No.93-1,July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No.04-01,August 25,2004 2. U.S.EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS). Posted on ht_pt ://www.el2a.gov/air/criteria.htmi. Last updated March 28,2008. 3. California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resource Board. Air Quality and Lund Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005 4. San Mateo County Transit District(samTrans). Bus route map for samTrans 85 Community Service. Effective December 23,2007(revise A). 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.December 1999 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Final adopted January 4,2006. 7. BayArea Air Quality Management District. Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule. November 9,2005. Q h' g P 8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Ambient Air Quality Standards&Bay Area Attainment Status. http://hank.baagmd.gov/Dln/air quality/ambient air quality.htm. Accessed September 20,2009. 9. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Plans—Planning for the Future. http://www.bpAmd.gov/pin/plans/indcx.htm. Last updated January 4,2007. 10. Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. El Corte de Madera Staging Area Traffic and Site Access Review. June 30,2009. g p g g .1.� 11. LFR Inc.Email correspondence with Nick Cartagena,Senior Staff Civil Engineer. November 21,2007. I! 31 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Would the project: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation IV(a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or L1 L9 through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? Explanation: (Sources: 1 through 9, 18 through 20). A number of special-status species surveys and resource inventory projects have been completed within the Preserve. Most recently,Albion Environmental, Inc. conducted a thorough biological assessment of the Preserve in order to identify special status species and other sensitive biological resources such as riparian resources and wetlands,and to identify mitigation measures to avoid potential impacts,if warranted. The parking lot,trail construction,trail realignment,and trail closure will be located in a variety of habitats, including mixed-evergreen forest,Douglas fir-redwood forest,redwood stands,and California bay-tanoak forest. The project will not have a significant impact on special status species through significant habitat removal, landscape alteration, or food chain modification. Potential adverse impacts to sensitive species,as well as sensitive habitats,would be generally limited to temporary construction impacts. All potential adverse impacts can be either avoided or reduced to insignificant levels through incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in this section. The parking lot is located on a flat,previously disturbed one acre site,approximately 25 feet higher in elevation and 100 feet from the edge of Skyline Boulevard. Prior to District ownership,the site was cleared for use as a logger's campground during past timber harvest operations. The site is now overgrown with non-native invasive French broom and periwinkle and is surrounded by mixed-evergreen forest. 1. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES A search of US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG),and California Native Plant Society(CNPS)special status plant species lists indicated no known special status plant occurrences in the project area. The nearest recorded special status plant species,Kings Mountain Manzanita (Arctostaphylos regismontana), is found north of the new connector trail and west of the new Ridge Trail alignment. Six other special-status species may potentially be present in or near the project area though none were observed based on reconnaissance-level surveys of the project sites;see table IV(1)below. The proposed parking area site is heavily disturbed and is dominated by French broom. Furthermore,no individuals of western leatherwood(Dirca occidentalis)or Kings Mountain Manzanita(Arctostaphylos regis-montana)shrubs were observed at the site or along the proposed trail corridor. Table IV(1): Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Project Area Plant Species Blooming Plant Community Habitat Common Name Period Santa Cruz Manazanita (Arctostaphylos Broadleaf upland forest,chaparral Open,exposed areas,usually November-April andersonii) 60-730 meters elevation CNPS list 1 B 32 Arcuate bush mallow (Malocothamnus Chaparral Chaparral, 15-335 m. April- arcuatus) September CNPS list 1B Dudley's lousewort Maritime chaparral,cismontane (Pedicularis dudleyi) woodland,North Coast coniferous Open areas,60-900 m. April-June CNPS list(IB) forest Clustered Lady's Broadleaf upland forest,mixed Wooded communities with March-July slipper(Cypripedium evergreen forest 60-80%canopy closure,near sp.)CNPS list(4) streambanks, 100-2435 m. Mountain Lady's Broadleaf upland forest,mixed Wooded communities with March-August slipper(Cypripedium evergreenl forest 60-80%canopy closure, 185- s CNPS list 4 2225 m. I P) O California bottle-brush North Coast Coniferous grass Broadleaf upland forest,cismontane forest,Riparian habitats, 15- May-November (Elymus californicus) woodland,riparian woodland 470 m. CNPS list 4 Impacts to special-status plant species: Ground disturbance associated with the project could potentially result in adverse impacts to the above special- status species, if they occur within the project area. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to special-status plants species: BIO-1. Focused plant surveys for each species listed in Table IV(I)shall be conducted prior to initial ground breaking to determine the species' presence or absence in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If any special-status plant species are found,areas supporting the species shall be avoided,where feasible. Work shall not start if a special-status plant specimen and its required i i ti n developed habitat conditions are found within the impact area while a plan detailing on-site m t ga o is de a ped based on consultation with CDFG. Construction work may start once such plan has been approved by CDFG. 2. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES Special status animal species that have the potential to occur within the project area include the marbled murrelet,Cooper's hawk, Sharp-shinned hawk,and the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat.Other sensitive animal species that could occur within the project area include a variety of migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The California Central Coast steelhead trout is not present within the project area,but could be indirectly impacted through sediment-generating construction activities. No suitable habitat exists for the California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonii) in the vicinity of the parking lot and trail system. Central California Coast Steelhead CCC steelhead,a federally listed threatened species,are known in the lower reaches of El Corte de Madera Creek,but not in the project area due to natural downstream passage barriers. Consequently,the project would not directly affect steelhead. Optimal steelhead spawning and rearing habitat consists of clear, cold,well-oxygenated fresh water with a silt- free gravel substrate. Desirable spawning streams typically offer ample cover in the form of substrate,woody debris,overhanging vegetation and/or overhanging banks. Project erosion control and water quality 33 considerations are discussed extensively in Sections VIII(a),(c),and(f). Because the project avoids and minimizes the potential for water quality degradation, it is not expected to result in any indirect adverse impacts to downstream steelhead. Moreover,the project would provide close and restore 0.7 miles of steep,erosion- prone existing trail, improving conditions for aquatic species such as steelhead. California red-legged frog California red-legged frog(CRLF)is a federally listed threatened species and California species of special concern that is known to occur in western San Mateo County. CRLFs are generally found along marshes, streams,ponds, and other permanent sources of water where dense scrubby vegetation such as willows,cattails, and bulrushes dominate,and water quality is good. Breeding sites occur along watercourses with pools that remain long enough for breeding(usually between late November and April depending on winter rains)and the development of larvae. Appropriate refugia for CRLF include small mammal burrows,downed logs or vegetation,or dense forest litter. Red-legged frog surveys conducted in 1999 and 2000(Seymore and Westphal)failed to locate any CRLF or breeding sites in the 2,817-acre preserve. According to the California Natural Database(CNDDB)they are not present in the vicinity of the project area,nor were they observed during the 2003 biological assessment conducted by Albion Environmental, Inc. Due to high levels of past disturbance,deep shade,and/or other factors,the Preserve lacks significant development of hardwood species normally associated with mature, structurally complex riparian vegetation in the Santa Cruz Mountains, such as red alder,big-leaf maple,box i elder,western creek dogwood,and other species. No suitable habitat for CRLF exists within the project vicinity. The project therefore is not expected to result in any direct impacts to CRLF. Project effects on habitat are discussed under IV(b)below. Potential indirect impacts to CRLF,if present in this area,could include temporary increase in turbidity and downstream sedimentation during construction activities. However,the project includes water quality protection measures that reduce the potential for such impacts to a less than significant level. Erosion control and water quality considerations are discussed further in Sections VIII(a),(c),and(f). Therefore,the project would avoid direct and indirect impacts to California red-legged frogs. Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet,a federally listed threatened species,is dependent on old growth coniferous forests for nesting and near-shore marine waters for foraging. No observations of marbled murrelet have been recorded in the Preserve. In the Santa Cruz Mountains,and redwood forests in general, most murrelet nests occur in large branches,or structures associated with large branches of old growth trees. USFWS describes individual marbled murrelet nest trees as large trees,generally more than 32 inches in diameter at breast height(dbh)with the presence of potential nest platforms or deformities sufficient in size to support adult murrelets. In California, murrelets begin nesting from early April to early July. Adults usually fly from ocean feeding areas to nest sites at dusk and dawn to feed their young. For suitable habitat to occur,nest trees(platform trees)must be present and need to be surrounded by other large trees(a nest tree cannot be an isolated tree). The surrounding trees need not be platform trees,but really serve more to provide shelter to the platform tree. Due to extensive logging of the Preserve before the District acquired the property,only three old growth trees are known to remain in the Preserve. In addition,a marbled murrelet habitat assessment was prepared in March 2007 and found that there was no suitable habitat located within 0.5 miles from the project sites. Due to the short-term nature of the project and the distance to potential 34 suitable habitat,the minimal equipment involved in project construction,and the distance to potential nest trees, no indirect adverse noise-related impacts to nesting marbled murrelets would occur as a result of the project. The project avoids tree removal to the extent practicable by constructing the parking lot in a previously disturbed site and winding the proposed new trail segment around trees where possible. Nonetheless,the project will require the removal of three large trees. Of these,only one is larger than 32 inches dbh. However,that tree does not provide suitable nesting habitat and lacks deformities or platforms suitable for nesting use. No suitable habitat exists within the entire Preserve for the marbled murrelet. Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks The Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk are both State species of special concern that are considered rare breeders in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Cooper's hawks prefer forested habitats in mountainous regions,but also use lowland riparian woodlands and forage in both dense cover and open habitats. In California,nests are usually constructed in oak trees. The local breeding season spans from March through July. Sharp-shinned hawks prey mostly on small songbirds and breed from April through July. Potentially suitable breeding habitat for sharp-shinned hawks occurs over much of the forested mountainous terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Nesting sharp-shinned hawks typically inhabit dense coniferous forests adjacent to foraging habit. Densely foliaged conifers that are surrounded by dense canopy cover are considered prime nesting trees. Impacts to Cooper's and sharp-shined hawks The project area may offer potential nesting and migrating habitat for Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks. Temporary construction noise may create a disturbance to nesting hawks and potentially result in nest abandon- ment and mortality of young. Removal of trees containing hawk nests may potentially result in the loss of an active nest and mortality of young. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks: BIO-2. The three to four month construction period for each project component would occur between the months of April and October due to County restrictions on the timing of earthwork operations and thus would overlap the raptor breeding season(April through August). Therefore,pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist after breeding season has begun and no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the project area. If nests of these species are found,no noise-generating construction activities shall occur within'/4 mile of the nest. Activities will be postponed until all young are fledged. Migratory Bird Species The Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA),amended in 1992,includes all migratory bird species. MBTA generally prohibits the taking,killing,possession of,or harm to migratory birds species listed in Title 50 code of federal regulation(CFR) Section 10.13. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code supports the MTBA. Nesting habitat for different species may occur in the project area. Cavity nesters such as acorn woodpeckers(Melanerpes formicivorus),pygmy nuthatches(Sitta pygmaea)and chestnut-backed chickadees (Parus rufescens)may occur in snags and debris left from past logging operations. Impacts to migratory bird species: Removal of trees,shrubs or snags suitable for avian nesting(trees and snags greater than 6 inches dbh or woody shrubs greater than 8 feet tall)within the project area during the breeding season(February 1 to August 1)could destroy active nest sites or stress nesting adults and result in nest abandonment or failure. 35 Mitigation incorporated into project for mi rg atory bird species: BIO-3. The three to four month construction period for each project component would occur between the months of April and October due to County restrictions on the timing of earthwork operations and thus would overlap the migratory bird breeding season(April through August). If suitable avian nesting trees are proposed for removal during the breeding season,a qualified biologist should conduct pre- construction nesting bird surveys within 30 days of the onset of any construction activity.The pre- construction survey should search all trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than 8 feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed,an appropriate buffer zone will be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. Removal of trees,snags, or woody shrubs with identified avian nests shall be postponed until all young are fledged. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a State species of concern. Woodrats are small mammals that build nests made of sticks typically at the base of trees and shrubs. The species prefers forested habitat with a moderate canopy and brushy understory,particularly on the upper banks of riparian forests. The dusky-footed woodrat is known to feed on a variety of woody plants,fungi, flowers and seeds. No suitable habitat exists in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot. There is potential for woodrat nests to be present in the undisturbed areas where new trails are proposed. Woodrat nest surveys were not performed;however,even if they had been, they would need to be repeated immediately prior to construction to ensure validity after the passage of time. Impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: Given that there is a potential that suitable habitat for woodrats occurs in the undisturbed areas where new trails are proposed,ground disturbance and temporary equipment and material staging may potentially result in the removal and loss of woodrat nests. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: BIO-4. A qualified biologist shall conduct San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest surveys prior to initial ground breaking to determine the presence or absence of nests in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If feasible,disturbance of woodrat nests shall be avoided by routing the trail and by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from known nest sites. If avoidance of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests is not feasible,CDFG will be consulted regarding the possibility of relocating the nests outside of the work area. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation IV(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat 0 0x or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Explanation: (Source: 1,5,21,22). Special-status natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region,support special-status plant or wildlife species,or receive regulatory protection,e.g. critical habitat designated by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act, §404 of the Clean Water Act,and/or the CDFG §1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The California Natural Diversity Database has also 36 designated a number of natural communities as rare. Riparian habitats are considered to be sensitive and declining resources by CDFG and the USFWS. The San Mateo County Local Coastal Plan also discusses sensitive habitat. The riparian corridor of Lawrence Creek tributaries extends through the project area. Lawrence Creek is a spring-fed perennial creek that drains the Preserve. The headwaters begin at the northern end of the Preserve near Skyline Boulevard. The project's erosion control measures allow the project to avoid adverse erosion and water quality degradation impacts to riparian areas as a result of ground-disturbing construction activities. Refer to Sections VI(b)and VIII(c)for further discussion. The project specific guidelines to minimize removal of woody vegetation within 50 feet of active stream channels and install protective fencing around trees will minimize potential adverse impacts to riparian areas resulting from the parking lot and trail construction. These guidelines are more protective than California Forest Practice Rules and buffers required by adjacent Bay Area counties. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation IV(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Explanation: (Sources: 1, 10). The Clean Water Act is a broad statute with the goal of maintaining and restoring waters of the United States. Among many provisions for the control of water pollution, Section 404 of the Act requires permits for filling of or discharge of dredged materials into wetlands and waters of the United States. Impacts to wetlands: The project includes eight small stream crossings along the new trail alignments. Proposed crossings will consist of rock fords,low puncheons,and small diameter culverts. Installation of these structures may result in minimal fill entering jurisdictional wetlands. However,given the minor extent of disturbance and the abundance of wetlands within the larger project area,the project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the federally protected wetland resources of the Preserve. Consequently,the project is not expected to result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation IV(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 19 resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Explanation: (Source: 1, 10, 11, 12). The project would not interfere with wildlife movement corridors or impede wildlife movement,including movements of any fish,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. The parking lot and trails will not be fenced,and will not act as a barrier to wildlife movement. Installation of the stream crossings will occur within small intermittent drainages that are dry the majority of the year and do not 37 support resident fish populations. Natural and man-made fish barriers along El Corte de Madera Creek, inventoried by California Fish and Game, obstruct the ability for anadromous fish species to migrate upstream in the vicinity of the project sites. I Potential] Less Than Less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation IV(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Explanation: (Source: 13, 14, 15) The project area is located in a densely forested setting within the Timberland Preserve-Coastal Zone(TPZ-CZ),which is exempt from permitting requirements for tree removal under San Mateo County's Significant Tree Ordinance. Removal of non-significant trees within the Timberland Preserve Zone does not require a permit,unless the trees are located within 100 feet of a County or State scenic road or highway. The aesthetic impact of the project as it pertains to a County scenic highway is addressed in Section I. The project avoids tree removal to the extent practicable by constructing the parking lot in a previously disturbed site and winding the proposed new trail segment around trees where possible. The project will require the removal of several trees, only one of which would meet San Mateo County's definition of a heritage tree if the tree ordinance were applicable in the project area. As discussed in section I(b),the three large trees to be removed will be replaced per the County's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore,tree removal will remain consistent with local tree ordinances. Since the project includes tree protection and revegetation of disturbed areas,the project would remain consistent with local ordinances protecting other biological resources. Potentiall Less Than Less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation IV(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0K Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Explanation: (Source: 16, 17). No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan applies to the project area. Biological Resources Section Sources: 1. Biotic Resources Group and Dana Bland&Associates. Virginia Mill Trail Project Biological Impact Report. May 8,2002. 2. Corelli.Toni. Vegetative Resources of El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve.September 1994. 3. Federal Emergency Management Agency,Region IX.Sandro Amaglio,Regional Environmental Officer.Getter to Wayne White,Field Supervisor, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.April 2001. 4. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Jan Knight,Chief,Endangered Species Division.Letter to Sandro Amaglio,Regional Environmental Officer,Federal Emergency Management Agency.May 14,2001. 5. Federal Emergency Management Agency,Region IX.Supplemental Environmental Assessment:FEMA-1203-DR-CA, Virginia Mill Trail Project.June 21,2001. 38 6. Seymour,R.and M.Westphal.Results of a one-year survey for amphibians on lands managed by the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District in the Santa Cruz Mountains,California.Report submitted to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.2000. 7. Calflora website.http://www.calflom.pry.November 26,2002. 8. California Native Plant Society.Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.Special Publications Number 1,Fifth Edition. February 1994. 9. Sander,S.California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System.httg://www.dfiz.ca.Liov/whdabiB240.html.November 26,2002. 10. Personal communication,Kathy Lyons,Biotic Resources Group,November 20,2002. 11. California Department of Fish and Game. Stream Survey of El Corte de Madera Creek. October 21, 1985. 12. California Department of Fish and Game.Stream Survey:El Corte de Madera Creek,San Mateo County. 1996. 13. San Mateo County Ordinance Code.Section 12000:Regulation of Removal of Significant Trees.June 11, 1990. 14. San Mateo County Ordinance Code.Section 11000:Regulation of Removal of Heritage Trees.April 5, 1977. 15. San Mateo County Department of Public Works.Endangered Species and Watershed Protection Program, Volume 1: Maintenance Standards.February 20,2001. 16. California Department of Fish and Game,Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. htW://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/conproi/conproi.shtml.November 4,2002. 17. California Department of Fish and Game,Natural Community Conservation Planning Program. http://www.dfg.ca og v/nccp/.November 4,2002. 18. Albion Environmental,Inc.Biological Assessment of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve.December 2003. 19. Keith L.Bildstein and Ken Meyer. Sharp-shinned Hawk(Accipiter striatus). In The Birds of North America,No.482(A. Poole and F.Gill,Eds.). 2000. 20. R.N.Rosenfield and J.Bielefeldt. Cooper's Hawk(Accipiter cooperii). In The Birds of North America,No. 75(A.Poole and F.Gill,Eds.). 1993. 21. Richard R.Harris,Susan D.Kocher,and Kallie Marie Kull. Effects of County Land Use Policies and Management Practices on Anadromous Salmonids and Their Habitats. Final Report. January 2001. 22. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. California Forest Practice Rules. January 2007. 39 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Would the project: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation V(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 historical resource as defined in§15064.5? Explanation: (Source: 1,2,3). No above-grade structures(historic or otherwise)are present within the project area. A literature review and records search at the Northwest Information Center(NWIC)of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University conducted in 2003 indicates that the project area contains no recorded Native American or historic cultural resources. Although there is a history of timber harvesting at this Preserve,there are no recorded historic sawmill sites within the project area. District staff observed no significant historic materials in the proposed driveway,staging area,or trail alignment. The proposed staging area and driveway location was also highly disturbed from use of the site by the previous owner,who used the area for equipment storage, disposal,and labor to support logging on the property. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact I Impact Incorporation V(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 11 19 0 an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? Explanation: (Source: I through 4).The records search performed by NWIC of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University did not identify any archaeological or historic resources in the project area. However,there is a possibility that Native Americans may have inhabited the project area prehistorically or at the time of Spanish entry into the Bay region.This region of the Santa Cruz mountains was also developed for timber harvesting and residential purposes during the 19`h and 20`h centuries, and it is possible that there are unknown archaeological remains from this historic period. District staff surveyed the proposed trail alignment and the proposed driveway and staging area for cultural resources.No surface artifacts were observed along the proposed Bear Gulch trail alignment. No artifacts were observed in the proposed staging area location,and historic aerial photographs of the area show that it was highly disturbed by use of the site for equipment storage and logging support operations in the 1980s.Therefore,the potential for discovery of intact archaeological deposits during construction of the staging area location is low. District staff observed one chert artifact and two non-diagnostic,potentially anthropogenic lithic fragments in the vicinity of the proposed driveway.After observing these fragments,staff intensively surveyed the driveway area but did not observe any additional surface artifacts.The driveway area has also been disturbed by a historic roadbed and a Caltrans drainage area. Impacts: Given the sparse distribution of the artifacts in the vicinity of the proposed driveway and the disturbed nature of the site,the chances of finding an intact archaeological deposit there are small,and further archaeological testing of the site is not warranted. However,all ground initial disturbance activities during the construction of the driveway should be monitored by a qualified archaeological professional for the unlikely event that intact significant archaeological resources could be discovered in this area. Since the construction of the parking lot and trails involves ground disturbance in an area with the possibility of containing unknown cultural resources,the project may accidentally disturb or unearth archaeological resources. Archeological resources include buried features such as stone or adobe foundations or walls,wooden remains with square nails,other historic artifacts,chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points,mortars and pestles,dark 40 friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris,and heat-affected rock. Mitigation incorporated into project: CULT-L Implementation of the following measure will reduce potential impacts to cultural and historical resources in the proposed driveway area, including buried and unknown archeological,paleontological, and human remains,to a less-than-significant level: • Due to the observation of one isolated lithic artifact and two potential lithic artifacts within the vicinity of the proposed driveway,all initial ground disturbance activities during construction of the driveway shall be monitored by a qualified archaeological professional. If cultural and/or historical resources are encountered during construction,the measures outlined in CULT-2 shall be followed. CULT-2. Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to cultural and historical resources, including buried and unknown archeological,paleontological,and human remains,to a less- than-significant level: • If cultural and/or historical resources are encountered during construction,every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid the resources. Work shall stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert can assess the significance of the find. • A reasonable effort will be made by the District to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect finds include fencing and covering remains with protective material such as culturally sterile soil or plywood. • If vandalism is a threat,24-hour security shall be provided. - Construction operations outside of the find location can continue during the significance evaluation period and while mitigation for cultural and/or historical resources is being carried out,preferably with a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert monitoring any subsurface excavations. • If a resource cannot be avoided a qua lified cultural and/or historical resources expert will develop an q P P appropriate Action Plan for treatment to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. The District will not proceed with construction activities within 100 feet of the find until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved. • The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural and/or historical resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current professional standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. • Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect cultural and/or historical resources encountered during construction. This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a)for invoking unanticipated discoveries. 41 Potentiall Less Than Less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation V(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 0 resource or site or unique geologic feature? Explanation: No unique paleontological resources are known to exist within the project area. The mitigation under section V(b)calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made,which will also reduce potential impacts and inadvertent damage to unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level. There are no known unique geologic features within the project area.The proposed project will not substantially change the overall landform and therefore the uniqueness of any geologic feature will not be significantly impacted by the project. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation V(d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Explanation: (Source: 1,4, 5).No human remains are known to exist within the project area. However, given the possibility of prehistoric resources,as discussed under V(b)above,unknown human remains may be present in the project area and may be discovered during project construction. Impacts: Since the construction of the project involves ground disturbance in an area with a possibility of cultural and historical resources,the project may accidentally disturb unknown human remains. Mitigation incorporated into project: CULT-3. If human remains are uncovered during project construction,the District will immediately halt work,contact the San Mateo County Coroner to evaluate the remains,and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in §15064.5(e)of the CEQA Guidelines(California Code of Regulations, Title 14,Division 6,Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). No further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition,which shall be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery,pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD).The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. The mitigation under section V(b)calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made,which will also reduce the potential for disturbance of human remains. 42 Cultural Resources Section Sources: 1. Haydn,Damon.Literature Review for El Corte de Madera Creek.Northwest Information Center,California Historical Resources Information System.Rohnert Park,California.November 3,2003. 2. Stanger,Frank M.Sawmills in the Redwoods:Logging in the San Francisco Peninsula,1849-1967.San Mateo County Historical Association.San Mateo,California. 1967. 3. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.Photographs of previous land use at proposed staging area.June 1, 1983 and October 1, 1986. 4. CEQA Guidelines,Section 15064.5.http://ceres.ca.gov/cega/guidelines/.Accessed on May 6,2008. 5. California Law.Official California Legislative Information website.California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Division 6,Chapter 3,Sections 15000-15387;State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5;Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Accessed on May 6,2008, 43 J VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentiall Significant less Than Would the project: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VI(a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 0 effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on 0 0 9 the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 0 iv)Landslides? 19 VI(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or Q that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? Explanation for a and c: (Sources: 2,3,4,7, 8).The project includes: an asphalt,65-car,four-equestrian trailer space parking lot with a self-contained,vault restroom facility and a staging area;a driveway leading to the parking lot; approximately 2.2 miles of new three to five-foot wide recreational trail; the closure and decommissioning of approximately 0.7 miles of existing steep trail; installation of"No Parking"signs to remove approximately 40 informal roadside parking spaces on Skyline Boulevard; and relocation of the Skyline Boulevard pedestrian crossing. The proposed project is located within a near-wilderness rural mountain setting. No structures for human occupancy are proposed. A 2009 engineering-geologic evaluation of the project was conducted to identify engineering methods to reduce the potential for trail erosion,and the project's civil engineer has included on-site bioretention basins for the parking lot as explained in the project description. The project site lies in a tectonically active region of the coast range in northern California high in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Compression associated with the nearby San Andreas Fault Zone has caused a high rate of tectonic uplift,resulting in relatively high denudation rates. The geomorphology of the project area is consistent with both shallow and deep-seated landsliding. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve(Preserve)is located in this region of high seismic activity,approximately five miles southwest of the active San Andreas Fault zone,which is the closest fault to the property with a high probability of generating a large magnitude earthquake in the next 50 years.The San Francisco Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault has been assigned a slip rate that results in a Mw 7.3 earthquake with a recurrence interval of 400 years.Other faults in the vicinity include the Pilarcitos fault,which lies 2.5 miles northeast of the site;the La Honda fault,2 miles to the southwest;and the San Gregorio fault, 5.5 miles to the southeast. According to the Woodside Quadrangle of the Al uist-Priolo Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone Ma the project area is not in a known hazard zone q p P, P J o e for earthquake fault ruptures. Mean Peak Ground Acceleration(PGA)on firm rock at the subject site with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is reported to be 0.72g. High ground accelerations associated with fault rupture along this fault system is likely a contributing factor if not a dominant factor for movement on many of the deep-seated landslides found in the area.Due to the presence of surface and shallow bedrock in the project area,the risk of liquefaction at this site is very low. Shallow landsliding and stream bank erosion are locally present along the steep streamside slopes within the Preserve. These rainfall-activated failures include shallow debris slides,debris flows,channel bank failures,and 44 road fill failures. They are characterized by rapid,shallow movement of surficial soil,colluvium,and weathered bedrock and are generally less than ten feet thick. Most of the observed shallow landslides occurred on slopes over 60%. The proposed parking lot location and access road are on a relatively flat slope and are not in danger of steep bank erosion. The proposed trails avoid steep slopes to the greatest extent feasible.Nonetheless,where the proposed trail will be required to cross the head of an old/relic shallow landslide scar or will cross slopes greater than 60%,there is a potential for small scale shallow slope failures during adverse climatic or seismic events. A 2002 inventory (Best,2002)of roads and trails in the Preserve identified slope failures along old logging roads and skid roads due to thick fill that was loosely side-carted onto steep slopes,overly steep trail alignments,and poor road drainage. This inventory created the basis for the 2004 Watershed Protection Program(WPP),a project designed to reduce erosion and sedimentation potential to the aquatic environment from the 35-mile network of unpaved roads within the Preserve. The WPP was developed in cooperation with San Mateo County Planning, Regional Water Quality Control Board,NOAA Fisheries,and CA Dept of Fish and Game,among other agencies. The inventory recommends design upgrades and physical improvements for the road network. These recommendations,coupled with the District's Details and Specifications Guidelines,provide direction for implementing road upgrades while protecting the aquatic environment from sedimentation. Examples of some of the Best Management Practices(BMPs)from the WPP and the District's Details and Specifications Guidelines include permanent practices such as frequent rolling dips,built-in grade reversals, insloping/outsloping cross slopes,rocking,and other trail design techniques designed to properly drain roads and trails to be resilient to large storm events without causing erosion.Temporary construction BMPs include practices such as proper application of silt fence,straw and/or native mulch,native plantings,bioengineering techniques, and application of water for dust control and appropriate compaction. The new trails have been designed to minimize the potential for erosion that may arise from future trail use. The new trails will maintain ° tin an average trail grade of 10/o and will be constructed with an outsloped pitch where appropriate, incorporating frequent cross drains such as rolling dips,reverse grades,and nicks to allow for proper drainage and avoid concentratingwater on the trail surface. The project will incorporate BMPs described in the WPP to minimize P J IP the potential for erosion arising from trail construction activities including compacting loose fill,scatter casting P g g p g g (placing loose material at a stable location where sediment transport will not occur)versus side-casting excess soil,end hauling additional spoils,and watering the construction site as needed. 1 occurring along the cutbank likely scenario for geologic failures will be small surface slumps s c o The most e y g g p g g , requiring the trail tread to be cleared of debris. Large-scale slope failures are not expected. Future slide movement is unlikelyto result in harm to users of the parking lot or trails and is not expected to result in P $ substantial sediment delivery to streams. There are several known deep-seated landslides in the region surrounding the project area,including along segments of the proposed new and realigned trails. The slides were identified in the aerial photographs and elevation models for the site and on the ground surface by benched topography, landslide scarps,and juvenile drainage patterns. The larger slides are comprised of several smaller slide blocks that coalesce or are nested together to form a larger landslide complex. Many of these slides appear to be periodically initiated or reactivated by long duration rainfall,undercutting of slopes by drainages,and strong ground motions during earthquakes such as the1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Some landslides in the Preserve appear weathered and dormant,with straight-standing second growth trees. Others show signs of recent small-scale movement,such as localized,discontinuous scarps and poor-to moderately-incised drainages. The morphology of these slides indicates that they have been periodically active for centuries.Future slide movement caused by heavy rainfall or intense ground shaking due to earthquakes is expected in the project area,but catastrophic slides are not expected. Future landslides on this Preserve will occur regardless of land use activities. Given the nature of low-intensity 45 recreational use and the infrequency of experiencing seismic and landslide hazards as discussed above,visitors using the trails or the parking lot would not be subject to substantial adverse effects from geologic hazards beyond a reasonable level. A reasonable level of geologic risk is defined as where damage to the trail may occur during adverse geologic events,e.g. intense storms and high ground accelerations during earthquakes,but unlikely to result in significant harm or death to recreational users. In accordance with the design recommendations of a Certified Engineering Geologist,trails will be designed and constructed to minimize future erosion and geologic failures. The narrow,three to five-foot width footprint of the trails will result in small cuts and fills with little impact on these slides since the mass balance and hydrology of each slide will not be substantially altered.Therefore,the potential for an increased risk of deep-seated landsliding as a result of the trail construction is considered to be low. In addition,the District routinely patrols trails and provides maintenance to avoid and minimize public exposure to hazardous geologic conditions. Therefore,the likelihood for adverse effects to people or structures from seismic ground shaking or surface failure is less than significant. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VI(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 topsoil? Explanation: (Sources: I through 8). The Preserve is located in the headwaters of the 33,379-acre San Gregorio Creek watershed. Precipitation in the watershed is highly seasonal,with 90%falling between October and April. Based on site-specific mapping and field observations,the site soils are naturally well drained and highly susceptible to erosion. The parking lot will include on-site drainage improvements in the form of interconnected bioretention basins,as recommended by the project civil engineers,to collect and retain storm water onsite and allow for natural percolation,thus preventing offsite erosion. Little to no storm water is anticipated to exit the site as a result of this project. Trail construction will incorporate drainage improvements,as recommended by the project engineering geologist, for proper surface drainage to minimize the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation. The new trails will maintain an average trail grade of 10%and will be constructed with an outsloped pitch where appropriate,incorporating frequent cross drains such as rolling dips,reverse grades,and nicks to allow for proper drainage and avoid concentrating water on the trail surface. The new trails will include eight small drainage crossings in ephemeral channels or springs using rock fords,low puncheons,and small culverts to prevent sedimentation to the aquatic environment. The realignment of the Steam Donkey Trail will result in the closure and decommissioning of a poor culvert crossing and an overly steep section of trail with slopes ranging between 15%and 30%. The realignment will reduce future erosion in a location that was identified as a high priority for sediment reduction in the 2004 Watershed Protection Program(WPP)specifically prepared for the Preserve. Since 2004,as part of the WPP,the District has made upgrades ten miles of roads and trails to improve drainage, reduce sedimentation,and improve water quality,so that the Preserve is able to accommodate projected visitor use while protecting the aquatic environment. The project will incorporate BMPs from the WPP and the District's Details and Specifications Guidelines to minimize the potential for erosion arising from trail construction activities, including compacting loose fill,scatter casting(placing loose material at a stable location where transport t r i e esediment t anspo 0 occur)versus sus s de-casting excess soil,end hauling additional excess spoils, and wateringthe construction site as needed. Following construction disturbed areas beyond the trail tread and g Y parking lot will be re-seeded with native seed and/or mulched. Most importantly,project construction will take place during the typical dry season(April to October),and erosion control measures will be installed prior to the onset of rains to minimize erosion. The combination of employing ecologically-sensitive trail construction standards and erosion control/dust suppression measures will reduce the potential for substantial soil erosion and 46 the loss of topsoil resulting from the project to less than significant levels. Moreover,the decommissioning and realignment of a poorly aligned trail segment and removal of in-stream fill will reduce the potential for future sedimentation resulting from existing conditions in the Preserve. Potentiall Less Than Less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation VI(d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of 0 ❑ ❑ the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? Explanation: (Source: 2). Based on site observations,the site soils have low plasticity,and have a low potential for expansion.No signs of highly expansive soils,e.g.shrinkage cracks,were observed. The project does not include the construction of structures that could be significantly affected by expansive soils. Given the open space setting of the project area and the lack of habitable structures,no substantial risk to Preserve users or property is expected due to expansive soils. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VI(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Explanation: The project area is located in a heavily vegetated,unimproved area,and no septic tanks or disposal systems are proposed as part of the project.The self-contained,vault restroom that will be installed adjacent to the parking lot does not use a septic system,but stores effluent waste in a contained,concrete vault. This waste will be pumped out of the restroom vault at least two to three times per year and will be properly disposed of. No effluent waste will be discharged as a result of this project. Effluent waste will be transported via a service truck to an appropriate offsite wastewater receiving facility. Geology and Soils Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County Department of Public Works.Endangered Species and Watershed Protection Program, Volume I: Maintenance Standards.April 14,2004. 2. Best,Timothy C.,CEG.Engineering Geologic Review of the Proposed Bear Gulch Trail Project,El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. February 26,2009. 3. California Division of Mines and Geology CD-ROM 2000-004(2000).Official Map ofAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Woodside Quadrangle. 1974,revised 2000. 4. Best,Tim,CEG.Road and Trail Erosion Inventory:El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve,Final Report. November 2002. S. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program.January 2004. 6. Weaver,William,and Hagans,Danny.Pacific Watershed Associates.Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads.June 1994. 7. LFR Inc. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Improvements Plans. August 2007. 8. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Details and Specifications Guidelines. September 2009. 47 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Would the project: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VII(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 L1X environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? Explanation: (Source: 1). This project will not result in the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials. The District does not currently routinely transport, use,or dispose of hazardous materials at the Preserve,and District Ordinance 93-1, Section 409.2 prohibits persons from possessing or using harmful substances on District lands. Potential risks associated with releases during the construction process are discussed in section(b),below. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VII(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the Ll L1 k environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Explanation: (Source: 1,6,7). Under District Ordinance 93-1,the operation of unauthorized motor vehicles within the interior of the Preserve is prohibited. General public use of the Preserve is limited to low-intensity, non-motorized,and non-emitting uses, including hiking,bicycling,and equestrian use. The possibility of the incidental release of motor vehicle oil,grease,or fuel is therefore limited to the infrequent use of the interior Preserve trails and roads by District patrol and maintenance vehicles and occasional emergency responders,the vehicles and machinery used during the construction process,and the vehicles that will park in the parking area. The project will not result in a significant increase in maintenance,patrol,or emergency response use of the Preserve. The project includes less than 2.2 miles of new narrow trail and restoration of 0.7 miles of existing trail,which amounts to a small increase in the total available mileage of public trails(approximately 35 miles)in the Preserve. These new trails will not be wide enough to accommodate standard patrol,maintenance,and emergency vehicles. Instead,smaller-scale equipment such as All Terrain Vehicles(ATV),Multi-Use Lightweight Equipment(MULE)utility vehicles,and SWECO small trail dozers will be able to access most new trail segments. Construction activities will include best management practices(BMPs),based on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, to reduce the potential for release of construction- related fuels and other hazardous materials into the environment,as follows: BMP Category BMP Description Timing Inspection and Maintenance Solid Waste Remove all trash and construction-related waste to Implement Inspect for trash on a Management a secured,covered location at the end of each during daily basis. working day to maintain a clean worksite. construction. Dispose of hazardous materials according to all s ecified regulations. 48 Materials Store chemicals in a non-reactive container. Store Implement Inspect storage areas Storage bagged,dry reactive materials in a secondary during daily to ensure no container. Protect all material storage areas from construction. leaks or spills have vandalism. occurred. Spill Prevention Good housekeeping practices shall be followed to Implement Clean up leaks and and Control minimize storm water contamination from any during spills immediately petroleum products or other chemicals. Maintain construction. using absorbent spill cleanup materials where readily accessible materials and as little during use. water as possible. Vehicle and Conduct proper and timely maintenance of Implement Inspect on-site Equipment vehicles and equipment. Cleaning or equipment during vehicles and Maintenance& maintenance shall be prohibited except in construction. equipment for leaks Fueling designated areas located near the entrance to the on a routine basis; Preserve. If fueling must occur on-site,use periodically check designated areas located away from drainage incoming vehicles for courses and use a drip pan to catch spills. Place leaking oil and fluids drip pans under heavy equipment stored onsite while on paved roads overnight. near the entrance to the Preserve. Training All personnel shall be instructed regarding the Implement None. correct procedure for spill prevention and control, during waste disposal,use of chemicals,and storage of construction. materials. The parking lot is designed to drain the storm water runoff from the pavement into a series of three engineered bioretention basins. The storm water will then percolate into the ground,thus preventing runoff, including contaminated runoff, from flowing into drainage ways(refer to Section VIII,Hydrology and Water Quality for more information). The risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment is therefore considered less than significant. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VII(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely x hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Explanation: (Source:2).The project area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school,Kings Mountain Elementary School, is located approximately two miles northwest of the project area. 49 Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VII(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 11 El 19 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Explanation: (Source: 3).The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites. No EPA regulated facilities are found in the project area or the Preserve. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact tImpact Incor oration VII(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VII(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Explanation for a and f: (Source:4). The project is not within an airport land use plan,within two miles of an airport,or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VII(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an 11 L1X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Explanation: The project will not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans and evacuation plans,as there are none for the area. The project will not add a significant number of users to the area and therefore will not increase resources required for emergency response or evacuation. An existing emergency helicopter landing zone is located on a grassy knoll near the parking lot and connecting trail. This landing zone and its access points will not be affected by the project. The parking lot will provide de facto overflow parking for emergency vehicles in the event that multiple emergency responders access the site simultaneously. Potentiall Less Than Less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation VII(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Ux injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Explanation: (Sources: 1, 5). The project area is located in a minimally developed portion of unincorporated San Mateo County in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)designates the project area as lying within a zone of high fire hazard severity,based on local 50 I i I vegetation type(fuel loading),slope and weather. However,the project will not change the degree of exposure to wildfires,because the Preserve is already open to public use. The Preserve has approximately 35 miles of trails and unpaved roads open to hiking,mountain bicycling,and equestrian use,including trails that are located within the project area. The project includes approximately 2.2 new miles of trail and the decommissioning of 0.7 miles of existing trail.The 1.5 net miles of new trails will not change the level of exposure to wildfires from or to the visiting public and trail-related structures. The paved parking lot will include physical barriers,including split-rail fencing,tall vegetation,and boulders,to prevent vehicles from driving onto other areas of the Preserve or from parking on surrounding grass areas. The District's current operational practice is to keep vegetation adjacent to and in all parking areas cleared and trimmed to manage fuels in higher risk areas. These measures reduce the potential for fire ignitions due to the presence of parked vehicles to a less than significant level. District Ordinance 93-1 Section 404 prohibits fires and smoking on District lands. In addition,District Rangers, who are trained in fire-fighting techniques and carry fire suppression equipment,regularly patrol the Preserve. District staff generally serve as first responders to fire emergencies within the preserves,with the primary fire protection responsibility falling to CAL FIRE,County Fire Departments,and municipal fire protection agencies. The District's radio and repeater system combined with ranger patrols and staff on call 24 hours per day enable prompt and effective communication with emergency service providers in the event of a wildland fire or an emergency response call. During project construction,the most likely source of ignition is by mechanical activities such as chain saw operations,re-fueling, or mowing. The chance for an ignition can be greatly reduced through equipment features, fuel treatment,and management of behavior. Mitigation incorporated into project: HAZ-1. All equipment to be used during construction must have an approved spark arrestor. HAZ-2. Cut grass and reduce fuels around construction sites where vehicles are allowed to park. HAZ-3. Minimize use of mechanical construction equipment during hot,dry,windy weather. HAZ-4. Hired contractors shall be required to: i) Provide water to suppress potential fires caused by the work performed. ii) Remind workers that smoking is prohibited at the work site and on any District land per contract conditions and District Ordinance. iii) Maintain working ABC fire extinguishers on all vehicles in the work area. iv) Contact both Mountain View Dispatch at(650)968-4411 and the California Department of Forestry, Skylonda,at(650)851-1860 for emergency response in the event of a fire(these numbers are to report emergencies only). Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section Sources: I. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No.93-1,July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No.04-01,August 25,2004. 2. Google Maps. www.google.com/maps. Search of project site and school locations. Information accessed on September 21, 2009. 3. United States Environmental Protection Agency.Regulated Sites Map for 94062.www.epa.gov/enviro/wme/. http•//l34 67 99 109/wme/myWindow asp?xl=-122 319305&yb=37 391434&xr=-122 270995&yt=37.427666. 51 4. United States Geological Survey.Woodside 7.5-minute series quadrangle map. 1991. 5. CAL FIRE.Maps of Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the State Responsibility Area of California,San Mateo County.Adopted November 7,2007. 6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Details and Specifications Guidelines. September 2009. 7. Regional Water Quality Control Board.Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual.August 2002. 52 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentiall Significant less Than Would the project: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VIII(a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge x requirements? VIII(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner,which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? VIII(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ Explanation for a,c,and f: (Sources: 1 through 6). These three items are interrelated and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition.These three items also relate directly to the District's Watershed Protection Program(WPP)for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve(Preserve). Since 2004,as part of the WPP,the District upgraded ten miles of roads and trails to improve drainage,reduce sedimentation,and improve water quality, so that the Preserve is able to accommodate projected visitor use while protecting the aquatic environment. This project involves the construction of a connector trail system and trail realignment; an asphalt parking lot;a driveway; and a self-contained, vault restroom facility. The parking lot will be sloped to follow the existing topography of the site,and will drain into a series of three engineered bioretention basins that will collect storm water runoff. The basins are connected via pipe or overland swale. The soil matrix at the bottom of each basin will act to treat the water as it percolates into the ground. Because of these design features little to no storm water is anticipated to exit the site as a result of this project. Effluent waste will be pumped out of the restroom vault at least two to three times per year and will be properly disposed of at an appropriate offsite wastewater receiving facility. No effluent waste would be discharged as a result of this project. As part of the existing WPP,a section of a steep existing trail will be re-aligned to a more gentle alignment in order to reduce the potential for sedimentation. In addition,the connector trail system includes a number of trail drainage improvements and erosion prevention measures according to the District's standard details and specifications and as outlined in the engineering geologic investigation report. All exposed soil surfaces in the parking lot construction area will be seeded and mulched. Disturbed areas along the proposed trail system will be seeded and mulched as appropriate.During the construction phase,which is expected to last three to four months,erosion control measures,as specified in the WPP,will be implemented to minimize storm water runoff from the construction site. Alteration of drainage patterns can be of concern where the project would disturb or grade steep lands adjacent to the trail,where the trail crosses existing drainages(i.e.ephemeral creeks or swales),or where trails have the potential to collect and concentrate stormwater,such as steep pitches or inside ditches. The drainage improvement and erosion prevention features proposed in the project include cross drains such as frequent built- in reverse grades,rolling dips,and nicks. These improvements prevent the concentration of surface runoff that could result in erosion or siltation and allow the project to avoid substantial erosion on-site or siltation off-site, thus reducing the potential impact under item VIII(c)to a less than significant level. Sedimentation can also result from wind and water erosion.As discussed in Section III(b),the projects dust 53 ..... ._.__ suppression measures and the dense vegetation and tree canopy buffering the construction zone from winds will minimize the potentially negative water quality effects of wind erosion. As discussed in Section VI(b),the project will be constructed in the dry season(April to October),and erosion control measures will be installed prior to the onset of rains to avoid erosion due to surface runoff.Potential negative water quality impacts from construction involving the accidental release of hazardous materials are discussed in Section VII(b). The project also includes a number of additional erosion control guidelines from the WPP to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. The new trail system will be laid out along contours at a trail gradient between 5% and 10%,and will be constructed with an outsloped pitch where appropriate,incorporating frequent cross drains such as rolling dips, reverse grades,and nicks to allow for proper drainage and avoid concentrating runoff water on the trail and causing erosion. Therefore,potential for the project to otherwise substantially degrade water quality is reduced to a less than significant level. Potentiall Less Than Less Than Significant Y with Significan No Significan t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation VIII(b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere K substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Explanation: Water is not provided on District trails. The project will not pump groundwater and therefore does not interfere with groundwater recharge and has no impact on groundwater supplies. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VIII(d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site L1 L1 19 or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,which would result in flooding on-or off-site? VIII(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Vlll(h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? Vlll(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Explanation for d,e,h,and is (Source: 5).These four checklist items are interrelated and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. The Preserve is located in the upper headwaters of El Corte de Madera Creek watershed approximately four miles west of Woodside,California. Precipitation in the watershed is highly seasonal,with 90%falling between October and April. The extensive open space lands surrounding the project provide a vegetated buffer for the project and allow rain to percolate into the ground rather than running 54 off rapidly. The project involves construction of a connector trail system and trail realignment following existing topography;an asphalt parking lot;a driveway;and a self-contained,vault restroom facility. The parking lot will be sloped to follow the existing topography of the site,and will drain into a series of three engineered bioretention basins that will collect storm water runoff. The basins are connected via pipe or overland swale. The soil matrix at the bottom of each basin will treat the water as it percolates into the ground. Because of these design features little to no storm water is anticipated to exit the site as a result of this project. The project would not substantially alter the site drainage patterns or increase the amount of runoff. The connector trail system will be required to cross approximately seven intermittent to ephemeral streams,and will involve the construction of eight watercourse crossings consisting of culverts,rock fords,and/or low puncheons(boardwalks). All proposed stream crossings have been designed to accommodate a 100-year flood flow. The proposed trails are unlikely to have any impact on peak flows. The proposed project will not place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that might impede flood flows. In addition,trail decommissioning or removal will improve drainage by restoring the original hydrology that was altered at the time of original road construction. Per standard District practice,District personnel regularly check drainage structures during and after storms, provide signage and barricades if needed,and perform maintenance as needed to ensure proper functioning of drainage structures and reduce the possibility that the project would expose people to significant flood risks. Therefore,potential for the project to result in flooding,expose people to flooding risks,exceed the capacity of drainage systems,or impede flood flows is reduced to a less than significant level. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VIII(g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Explanation: The project does not involve housing. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation VIII(j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X11 Explanation: (Sources: 4, 5). The project is situated at approximately 2,100 feet above mean sea level at the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Seiche or tsunamis would have no impact on the site. i Landslides are common in the Santa Cruz Mountains and are one of the dominant geologic forces shaping the current landscape. Oversteepened slopes due to tectonic uplift and rapid downeutting of streams coupled with high intensity rainfall or intense seismic activity have resulted in a number of large and small-scale landslides. Large,deep-seated bedrock landslides are also common in the Santa Cruz Mountains,and typically appear to be initiated or reactivated by strong ground motions during earthquakes. These failures are characterized by benched topography and are formed by translational movement of a relatively intact mass with a failure plane that extends below the colluvial layer into the underlying bedrock layer. Natural slide movement is attributed to weak earth materials that underlie much of the slopes in conjunction with 55 high groundwater conditions. The rate of deep-seated slide movement is considered to be slow and episodic and in response to long duration rainfall,undercutting of the slope by stream bank erosion,and/or seismic ground shaking from nearby faults. Future movement should be expected to be in response to intense,extended rainfall events or intense ground shaking during earthquakes,and most likely as small scale displacements similar to what has occurred in the past. Catastrophic failure of large slides is not expected. Mudflows are a form of shallow-seated landsliding known as debris flows. Shallow-seated landsliding is common throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains and is characterized by rapid,shallow downslope movement of surficial soil,colluvium, and weathered bed rock. Generally located on steep to very steep hillsides,most shallow slides are a result of a loss of soil tension due to the over-saturation of the soil profile from extended or intense storm events,and travel down slope in existing drainages. Very few landslides have occurred along the existing narrow recreational trails,which is attributed to the low cuts and fills along the trails and the frequent drainage dips that prevent runoff from being concentrated. Old failures along old logging roads and skid trails are attributed to thick fill that was loosely sidecasted onto steep slopes,poor drainage,or failure of oversteepened cuts. Few failures have occurred in recent years, in part due to current, improved management practices. Future shallow landslides will occur within the Preserve during adverse climatic or seismic conditions regardless of land use activities. Debris or mudflows could expose District personnel and the public to a life-threatening event if a flow occurred while people were present. The proposed project will not increase or decrease the hazard level from such an event. However,the low probability of such an event and the limited likelihood of District personnel or the public to be in harm's way during an intense storm necessary to precipitate such an event reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Hydrology and Water Quality Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County Department of Public Works.Endangered Species and Watershed Protection Program, Volume 1: Maintenance Standards.February 20,2001. 2. Weaver,William,and Hagans,Danny.Pacific Watershed Associates.flandbookfor Forest and Ranch Roads.June 1994. 3. Association of Bay Area Governments.Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control.May 1995. 4. United States Geological Survey. Woodside 7.5-minute series quadrangle map. 1991. 5. Best,Timothy C.,CEG.Engineering Geologic Review of the Proposed Bear Gulch Trail Project,El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. February 26,2009. 6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program.January 2004. 56 i IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Would the project: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation IX(a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Explanation: The project is located in an existing 2,817-acre open space preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County near the Town of Woodside and adjacent to Skyline Boulevard(also known as Highway 35). The project scope is largely contained within the Preserve with the exception of the following: installation of"No Parking"signs along the Skyline Boulevard right-of-way in areas where roadside parking is deficient due to poor lines of sight and inadequate,narrow shoulder widths,and relocation of the existing roadway trail/pedestrian crossing from Preserve Gate CM04 to Gate CM02 with installation of related"Trail Crossing" signs and construction of approximately 350 feet of new,narrow trail to connect to the new crossing. The new pedestrian crossing would be located approximately 4,100 feet(0.78 miles)to the north of Gate CM04 and 1,000 feet south of Gate CM02,and maintain connectivity between the Preserve and the current Bay Area Ridge Trail alignment. The project components will enhance public access to a popular Preserve,remove unsafe roadside parking,redirect vehicles into a new District parking lot,and improve trail user and traffic safety along Skyline Boulevard. The project will not physically divide an established community. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation IX b Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ ❑ i regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Explanation: ( t� ,Sources: I through 7 10). ) San Mateo County Zoninc The project area is located within unincorporated San Mateo County and the land is zoned Timberland Preserve Zone District(TPZ). The TPZ District was in part established to protect timberlands within the County and the ecological balance of such timberlands. Compatible land uses in a TPZ that would not inhibit the growing and harvesting of timber include"management of land for wildlife habitat"and"management for recreation," including"outdoor recreation requiring some development." Therefore,the addition of trails,a parking facility, roadside signage, and relocation of a trail/pedestrian roadway crossing to enhance outdoor public recreation is consistent with San Mateo County's zoning ordinance. San Mateo County General Plan The designated land use throughout most of the project site,including the parking lot and trails,per the San Mateo County General Plan and the Skyline Area Amendment to the General Plan, is"Timber Preserve/Production,"consistent with the TPZ. The designated land use of the remaining locations along the Skyline Boulevard frontage is"Open Space." The General Plan specifically states that some of the lands owned and managed by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District are zoned for Timberland Production to reflect the current recreational land use and prior timber harvesting activities on the property. The District will continue to manage the Preserve for public recreation and resource protection,which is compatible with the land use designation. San Mateo County Trails Plan The 2001 San Mateo County Trails Plan(Trails Plan)identifies the Bay Area Ridge Trail as a multiple-use regional trail that would extend for approximately 400 miles along the ridges of the San Francisco Bay. The 57 Trails Plan includes an extension of the Bay Area Ridge Trail through the project area to close one of the gaps along this long distance regional trail corridor. Therefore,the Bay Area Ridge Trail extension,as included in the project description,is consistent with the policies and goals identified in the Trails Plan. San Mateo County is currently updating the 2001 Trails Plan Policies,Design,Use and Management Guidelines. As of June 2009, a final version of the 2007 Trails Plan Update was not available. As such,this document will apply the guidelines and standards set forth in the currently available and published 2001 Trails Plan Policies, Design,Use and Management Guidelines. Local Coastal Program Area The project area is located outside the local coastal program area. County Scenic Roadways and Caltrans Scenic Hi way Guidelines Refer to Section I(b)for discussion. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Use and Management Plans The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has taken prior actions that support the goals and proposed elements of the project. These include the following. On March 24, 1999,the Board adopted a Use and Management Plan Amendment for the Study Area 2 Trail Use Plan(Trail Use Plan)for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The Trail Use Plan included various new trail alignments and proposed an onsite parking and staging area off Skyline Boulevard located south of the Gordon Mill trailhead,between Gates CM03 and CM04. On January 21,2004,the Board approved the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program. That program is briefly described in Section VI. The Watershed Protection Program identifies the feasibility study and design of the proposed parking lot as a key project. The proposed parking lot would establish a centralized staging location where interpretive signs and Preserve notices can be posted to disseminate information about the Watershed Protection Program. Potentiall Less Than Less Than y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation IX(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Explanation: (Sources: 8 and 9). No Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)or Natural Community Conservation Plan(NCCP)applies to the project area. Land Use and Planning Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County. General Plan. Section 6 Park and Recreation Resources Policies,Section 9 Rural Land Use Policies. 1986. 2. San Mateo County.Zoning Maps.Sheet 27. May 1992 Edition. 3. San Mateo County.Zoning Regulations.Chapter 34:Timberland Preserve Zane(TPZ)District. July 1999. 4. San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission.MHA Environmental Consulting,Inc.San Mateo County 2001 Trails Plan.2001. 5. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,Board Report R-99-45,March 24, 1999. 6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,Board Report R-04-10,January 21,2004, 7. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,Board Report R-08-56,April 9,2008. 58 8. California Department of Fish and Game,Habitat Conservation Branch, http:!lwww.dfiz.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/status.htmi,accessed on April 22,2008. 9. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,Conservation Plans and Agreements Database, http:!lecos.fws.gov/conservplanslpublic jsg,accessed on April 22,2008. 10. San Mateo County.Local Coastal Program, June 1998. i 59 X. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Would the project: y With Signitican No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation X(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ 9 resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ a mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Explanation for questions a and b: (Sources: 1,2). The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource. The site has not been classified as a Mineral Resource Zone,nor is it included in a Resource Sector in the Update of Mineral Land Classification or the mineral resources section of the San Mateo County General Plan. Field observations by District staff have revealed no evidence of the presence of mineral resources in the project area. Mineral Resources Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County. General Plan.Chapter 3:Mineral Resources. 1986. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology.Update of Mineral Land Classification:Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region.Open File Report 96-03. 1996. 60 XI. NOISE Less Than result in: Potential) Significant Less Than Would the project y with SignifiCan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incor oration XI(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 11 ElX excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? XI(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Explanation: (Source: 1,4 through 10). The standard unit of measurement for sound is the decibel(dB). Sounds can range from 0 decibels(threshold of hearing)to 160 dB (instant perforation of eardrum). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly 60 dB,busy street traffic is 70 dB,and the threshold of pain is 130 dB. The Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL)is another unit of measure for noise that is used as a standard for San Mateo County. CNEL measurements represent an average of measured noise levels obtained over a 24-hour period of time. A time-weighted factor is applied to account for the increased sensitivity of humans to noise in the morning,evening,and nighttime hours. This factor adds 5 dB to sounds occurring in the evening(7 p.m. to 10 p.m.)and 10 dB to sounds occurring in the late evening and early morning hours(between 10 p.m.and 7 a.m.). According to the County's General Plan Noise Policies,noise impact areas are defined as areas with noise levels of 60 CNEL or greater. The General Plan does not specify where noise levels are measured nor for what land uses. Exterior noise exposure levels of 70 CNEL or greater are considered significant for residential developments according to the State of California. Measured in decibels,exterior noise levels in quiet residential areas are typically 40 dB or 45 to 50 CNEL. Within the Preserve and the project area,current ambient noise levels are expected to be less than 60 CNEL,similar to exterior noise levels in quiet residential areas. Conversations among users in the parking lot and the non-motorized,low-intensity recreational uses of the project are not expected to generate noise in excess of local agency standards or generate ground borne noise or vibration. The County's General Plan Noise Policies promote measures which incorporate noise abatement into the design of roadway projects. Such measures can include smooth road surfaces and noise barriers. Slow speeds over the surface of the proposed asphalt parking lot(which would be quiet when driven over as compared to the gravel lots typical to District preserves)and the low volume of traffic anticipated would not generate noise in excess of local agency standards or generate ground borne noise or vibration. Similarly,engine starts and cars entering the roadway are not expected to generate noise in excess of local agency standards or generate ground borne noise or vibration. The construction phase of each project component is expected to last three to four months and would include demolition,earthmoving, and parking lot and trail construction activities. During construction,trail and parking lot construction machinery may generate temporary increases in noise to levels as high as 95 dB. Short-term construction noise impacts would occur in discrete phases and would occur during the daylight hours of summer and fall,located in an area that would be closed to public use during construction and buffered from adjacent properties by distance,elevation,and dense vegetation. The parking lot will be located approximately 25 feet above Skyline Boulevard,outside the line of sight between it and the adjacent houses,and is set back between 80 and 120 feet from the highway's edge. Since the project is small-scale in nature,any potential generation of noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL resulting from the project would be localized and limited to the short-term construction period. Any potential exposure to and generation of excessive vibration or noise resulting from the project would also be localized and limited to the short-term,three to four month construction period of each project component. 61 III XI. NOISE Less ThanPotentiall Significant Less Than Would the project result in: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact tImpact Incorporation XI(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels x in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Explanation: (Source: 2,4 through 7). Within the Preserve and project area,current ambient noise levels are under 60 CNEL.The connector trail portion of the project involves non-motorized low-intensity recreational uses,which would not generate substantial noise. In addition, under District Ordinance 96-1,operation of motor vehicles by the public within the Preserve itself is prohibited,thus limiting motor vehicle activity within the Preserve to ranger patrol and maintenance vehicles. No expansion of maintenance or patrol levels would be required by the project and therefore,potential vehicular noise generated by District patrol vehicles would be localized and intermittent. The parking lot portion of the project is small-scale in nature and is located within the Preserve,approximately 25 feet above Skyline Boulevard and set back between 80 and 120 feet from the highway's edge and away from other properties. Since asphalt is relatively quiet when driven over and a low volume of traffic is anticipated,vehicular traffic or engine starts are not expected to generate a permanent, substantial increase in ambient noise. Moreover,District Ordinance 93-1 prohibits after-hours use of the Preserve. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XI(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient L1 L1 19 11 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Explanation: (Source: 8,9, 10).Within the Preserve and project area,current ambient noise levels are under 60 CNEL. During the construction phase,which is expected to last three to four months for each project component,trail and parking lot construction machinery may generate temporary increases in noise levels. However, short-term construction noise impacts would occur in discrete phases and would occur during the daylight hours of summer and fall,located in an area that would be closed to public use during construction and buffered from adjacent properties by distance,elevation,and dense vegetation. In addition,both the trail construction and parking lot work would occur within the Preserve,25 feet above Skyline Boulevard,set back at least 80 and 120 feet from the highway's edge and away from other properties,and in an area that would be closed to public use during construction. Therefore,the temporary increase in noise is not expected to be substantial. 62 XI. NOISE Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Would the project result in: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact incorporation XI(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, x where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Explanation for a and f: (Source: 3). The project is neither located within an airport land use plan,within two miles of an airport,nor within the vicinity of a private airport. Noise Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County. General Plan. Chapter 16 Man-Made Hazards Policies,Noise Policies. 1986. 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No.93-1,July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No.04-01,August 25,2004. 3. United States Geological Survey. Woodside 7.5-minute series quadrangle map. 1991. 4. Hexagon Transportation Consultants,Inc. El Corte de Madera Staging Area Traffic and Site Access Review. June 2009. 5. LFR Inc.Email correspondence with Nick Cartagena,Senior Staff Civil Engineer. November 21,2007. 6. Roger L.Wayson,Ph.D.,P.E. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. NCHRP Synthesis 268. Relationship Between Pavement Surface Texture and Highway Traffic Noise. 1998. 7. California Department of Transportation. Pavement Advisory PSTPA-02: Designing Quieter Pavements. September 6, 2005. 8. California Department of Transportation. Typical Noise Levels,Intensity and the Decibel Scale Chart. htty://www.dot.ca. oe v/hq/esc/Translab/ot)e/NoiseLevels.html.Accessed September 16,2009. 9. California Department of Transportation. Safety Manual. Chapter 13 Hearing Protection Program. June 2008. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/opo/safet /y safetymanual toc.htm 10. CPWR(The Center to Protect Workers'Rights). Construction Noise Hazard Alert. December 29,2003. 63 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Would the project: Potentiall Significant Less Than l) y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XII(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, 0 0 11 0 either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? XII(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XII(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating 11 11 1 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Explanation for questions a, b and e: The project neither induces population growth nor displaces housing or people. The project also does not include the construction or removal of habitable structures or the construction of new public vehicular roadways or utility lines. 64 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentiall Significant less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XIII(a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?Police protection? Schools?Parks?Other public facilities? Explanation:The District's Operations Department already provides ranger patrol in the Preserve and maintenance staff to care for trails.The District collaborates with other local agencies in providing public services, including police and fire protection. District Staff is responsible for enforcing District regulations and certain selected sections of California code pertaining to vandalism,bicycle helmets,and parking. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office is involved in enforcement of all other code sections. District staff serves as a possible first responder for fire emergencies,with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection(CAL FIRE)acting as the responsible agency for fire fighting at El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve. Because the project will not substantially increase usage of the Preserve,no new or altered governmental facilities will be needed to provide public services to the Preserve as a result of the project. i I I 65 XIV. RECREATION Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XIV(a)Would the project increase the use of existing Li Li 19 11 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? XIV(b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 1, 2, 3). The construction of the proposed parking lot will not increase the use of El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve or Wunderlich County Park(located across Skyline Boulevard to the east of the Preserve)to a level that would result in a substantial physical deterioration of the Preserve or county park,the natural resources,or the existing trail systems. The 2,817-acre Preserve is currently open to the public and offers approximately 35 miles of mostly multiple-use trail(with the exception of a 0.1-mile hiking-only destination trail). Preserve visitors currently park on roadside shoulders and pullouts along Skyline Boulevard,at the nearby Caltrans vista point parking lot(Skeggs Point), and at a small, informal,roadside parking area north of the project site(near Gate CM02). Forty roadside parking spaces along Skyline Boulevard will be removed due to unsafe parking conditions where shoulders are inadequate and narrow and lines of sight are poor. The project calls for signing problematic roadside parking areas as"No Parking"zones to prevent visitors from parking in those areas. These actions will improve traffic safety along the highway,but also reduce the overall roadside parking capacity. The new parking lot will address the loss of roadside parking capacity by providing 65 car parking spaces and four equestrian spaces to the general public. The District expects that many visitors who currently park at the Skeggs Point parking lot and along the roadside will prefer to park in the new District parking lot given visitor amenities such as restrooms,trailhead signs,and boot and tire cleaning stations,ample staging area,ease of access,a safe and convenient connection to the Preserve's trail system,and multiple loop opportunities that will be offered just off the new parking lot. As observed by District Ranger staff,highest visitation occurs on weekends and holidays in the summer months. For the purpose of analyzing the project's effects on use of the Preserve,this analysis assumes the worst-case scenario that all users of the parking lot would be new park users. (This is a worst-case assumption because it is reasonable to expect that at least half if not more of the vehicles that will utilize the parking lot will contain existing users who would have otherwise parked elsewhere,as current parking patterns indicate.) Based on District observations at other preserves and a count performed at the Skeggs Point parking lot, each vehicle is expected to transport an average of two visitors(some vehicles will have solo drivers and others will contain users who carpool to the Preserve). According to a 2009 traffic study and report done for the Skeggs Point parking lot,the highest number of total trips per day occurred on the weekend. Based on these use patterns,the proposed parking lot could in theory add 315 total vehicle trips per day. Averaging two visitors per vehicle, 630 individuals would be added to the Preserve per day(a mix of hikers,mountain bicyclists,and equestrians). Due to the almost 35 miles of trail system and the subsequent dispersal of users throughout the Preserve,this increase is not expected to result in substantial impacts to the trail system or to the natural resources in the Preserve. Since 2004,the District has been actively implementing a Watershed Protection Program prepared for the Preserve that focuses primarily on improving the Preserve's road and trail system and drainage crossings to 66 i reduce upland erosion and creek sedimentation for the benefit of watershed integrity. To date,more than ten miles of trail have been improved,realigned,or narrowed using state-of-the-art trail construction standards. These changes not only improve surface drainage and reduce the potential for erosion,but also reduce long-term maintenance by stabilizing the trail tread. In addition,off-trail hiking is not permitted at this Preserve, and trails are routinely closed to mountain bicycling and horses during the winter months to reduce erosion. The new parking lot is also not expected to significantly increase the use of Wunderlich County Park,located across Skyline Boulevard to the east of the Preserve. The lot will not provide direct access to Wunderlich County Park. The parking lot is designed to discourage visitors from parking in the new parking lot with the intention of crossing Skyline Boulevard near Gate CM04 to enter Wunderlich County Park. The trailhead, restroom, and other visitor amenities are located toward the interior of the Preserve and away from the County Park. In addition,the project includes closing an access road that connects the new parking lot with Gate CM04; this road will be closed to the public,gated and signed as a"service road only."The Preserve's layout,amenities and maps are designed to be focused on the Preserve itself. The project will therefore have a less than significant impact on the use of the County Park. The project also involves the relocation of the Skyline Boulevard pedestrian crossing that connects the Preserve and the Bay Area Ridge Trail to the east. This will further serve to limit impact to the use of Wunderlich County Park. It is also not expected to significantly increase the use of the Preserve. The existing pedestrian crossing near Gate CM04 will be closed,and a new pedestrian crossing will be constructed just south of Gate CM02. The new pedestrian crossing will have better lines of sight than the existing crossing,which will improve traffic and user safety. The new crossing will be a safer alternative that allows for the continuation of existing use patterns, but it is not expected to attract a significant number of new users to the Preserve,the County Park,or the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The project as designed will not have a significant adverse physical effect on the environment nor would it significantly increase the use of the Preserve,Wunderlich County Park,or the Bay Area Ridge Trail such that substantial physical deterioration in any of the three would occur or be accelerated. For a discussion on trail design and construction and the potential impacts to water quality or loss of topsoil, please refer to Section VI and Section VIII. Recreation Section Sources: 1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Visitor Estimate Survey Project Counts completed by the Public Affairs Department. June 25,2007—July 8,2007. 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Visitor Counts. 1995 through 1997. 3. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Visitor Count. June 5 and 7, 2003. 67 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Potentiall Significant less Than Would the project: y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XV(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in El L1 19 11 relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? XV(b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Explanation for a and b: (Source: 4). The project is located in a 2,817-acre preserve approximately 2,100 feet above mean sea level at the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains,and about four miles west of Woodside, San Mateo County,California. The project includes an asphalt,65-car, four-equestrian trailer space parking lot with a self-contained, vault restroom facility;a driveway leading to the parking lot;and a connector trail system. The type of uses in the Preserve namely,hiking,mountain biking,and horse-riding,generally require a long duration of stay,and thus generate a low turnover in visitors and associated parking demand. In addition,the proposed new trails will serve existing Preserve users and possibly additional users who desire public recreation. The anticipated increase in use from the public is expected to be minimal to moderate and will not substantially increase the amount of traffic or cause congestion within the area. A traffic study was undertaken in the summer of 2008 and a final report prepared in June 2009. The amount of traffic that might be generated by the proposed parking lot was estimated based on traffic generated by an existing nearby parking lot, Skeggs Point(a Caltrans vista point),already used by Preserve users as well as other visitors stopping to take in the view or take a rest stop. The peak-hour trip generation rate for Skeggs Point's parking lot was the highest on the weekend(with the actual peak occurring on Sunday), in keeping with Preserve usage patterns observed by District Ranger staff. The rate was determined to be 1.02 trips per parking stall during the Sunday peak hour. The proposed parking lot contains a total of 69 parking spaces, which includes four equestrian parking spaces, and using the above trip generation rate,would generate a maximum of 70 peak hour trips. Under the worst-case scenario,all of the trips generated by the parking lot would be new. In reality, some vehicles that currently park along the roadside would likely relocate to the lot,as 40 roadside parking spaces along Skyline Boulevard will be removed due to unsafe parking conditions such as inadequate,narrow shoulder widths and poor lines of sight. Per the 2007 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program and Caltrans, Skyline Boulevard is calculated to have the capacity of 2,240 vehicles per hour, 1,120 vehicles per hour in each direction. A roadway operating at its capacity would be perceived as congested by the driving public and it would be difficult to enter the roadway from cross streets. According to Caltrans traffic data,the peak hour of traffic volume on Skyline Boulevard occurs on Sunday afternoon and in the vicinity of the Preserve is 120 vehicles during that peak hour,both directions combined (directional volume is not published). This is less than six percent(6%)of the roadway's capacity of 2,240 vehicles per hour. While the peak hour on Skyline Boulevard might not necessarily coincide with the peak hour of the project's traffic,for the purposes of this document,they are assumed to occur at the same time. The new parking lot would add up to 70 new trips during the Sunday peak hour whereas during other times of 68 f number of tri s would be less. Using the Sunda peak hour,the peak h a and on other days,the additional theg Sunday , P Y Yp hour volume in the vicinity of the Preserve would be about 190 vehicles per hour(120 plus 70),which is less than ten percent(10%)of Skyline Boulevard's capacity of 2,240 vehicles per hour. Therefore,it can be concluded that the new traffic generated by the parking lot will not have a substantial impact on the existing traffic load and capacity of Skyline Boulevard. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XV(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either 0 Ll 0 X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Explanation:The project has no effect on air traffic patterns. Less Than Potential[ Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XV(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature x (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? with 65 car parking spaces and four Explanation: (Sources: 1, 3,4). The project includes an asphalt parking lot p g p P i end-to-end equestrian trailer spaces. A 380-foot long driveway leads from Skyline Boulevard to the parking lot and incorporates a Caltrans standard flared driveway approach,designed to accommodate a 24-foot gooseneck four-horse trailer and a full size standard pickup truck entering and exiting the parking lot. The project also includes the relocation of a Skyline Boulevard trail/pedestrian crossing that connects the Preserve and the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The purpose of relocating the crossing would be to improve trail user and traffic safety as trail users travel between the Preserve and the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The 2009 traffic study and report included sight distance analysis of both the proposed driveway and pedestrian crossing as well as an analysis of the driveway itself. Siaht distance n requirements,the drivewa must meet minimum si ght ht requirements,which are a To comply with Caltransy g q , function of vehicle speed,which in turn is a function of the radius of the horizontal curve of the roadway. Horizontal curvatures near the project driveway and near the proposed pedestrian crossing were obtained from Caltrans roadway plans for Skyline Boulevard. The required minimum stopping distance was calculated to be 415 feet to the north of the proposed driveway and 280 feet to the south of the proposed driveway. For left- turning vehicles entering the proposed driveway,the minimum stopping distance is approximately 447 feet. For vehicles exiting and making left and right turns from the proposed driveway,the minimum stopping distance is 512 feet. To the south,the minimum stopping distance is 498 feet. Based on these findings,it was determined that the driveway entrance has adequate stopping distances and meets Caltrans sight distance requirements. At the proposed pedestrian crossing, located approximately 4,100 feet(0.78 miles)north of Gate CM04 and approximately 1,000 feet south of Preserve gate CM02,the required minimum stopping sight distance was calculated to be 415 feet to the north and 600 feet to the south. Sight distances were measured from both the east and west sides of the crossing,towards the north and south,respectively. From the east side of the crossing, sight distances were measured to be 1,135 feet to the north and 625 to the south. From the west side of the crossing,sight distances were measured to be 1,000 feet to the north and 605 feet to the south,respectively. Based on these findings,the sight distances at the proposed pedestrian crossing were found to meet the stopping distance requirements. 69 DrivewU analysis Near the proposed parking lot is a private driveway that provides access to two residences on the east side of Skyline Boulevard. The traffic study considered the extent to which use of the parking lot would potentially affect the private driveway. Field reconnaissance found that drivers in vehicles in both driveways would be able to see each other and therefore take measures to avoid accidents. Preserve Use Within the Preserve and trail system,motorized vehicles are not allowed per District ordinance. Motor vehicle access within the Preserve will be limited to ranger patrol and maintenance vehicles,and no expansion on the number of patrol vehicles accessing the Preserve would be required by the project. The project is expected to result in a minimal expansion on the number of maintenance vehicles accessing the Preserve to transport small- scale equipment and hand tools to conduct infrequent trail and staging area maintenance. Additionally,the trails will not include any hazards such as blind,sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Finally,there will be no glare or light impact on Skyline Boulevard from vehicles exiting the parking lot,as the project does not include exterior lighting fixtures and the parking lot will be locked when still light,one-half hour after sunset per District Ordinance 93-1, Section 805.2. District Ordinance 93-1, Section 805.2 prohibits the use of the Preserve by the public between one-half hour after sunset and sunrise. Less Than Potential] Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XV(e) Result in inadequate emergency access? El L1 19 11 Explanation: (Source: 2, 3).The parking lot turning radii and the Caltrans standard flared driveway configuration have been designed to accommodate required emergency vehicle access. In addition,an existing emergency landing zone is located approximately 500 feet northwest of the proposed parking lot and will remain accessible from the lot via an existing access road and Preserve gates. The landing zone is maintained regularly by the District and kept clear of vegetation. The trail system is located in a Preserve where emergency access needs are limited to fire fighting and evacuation in the event of injury. The tread width along existing trail segments within the Preserve already limit access by large firefighting and rescue vehicles. However,existing trail widths allow access by all-terrain vehicles(ATVs)throughout the Preserve if vehicular emergency access is required. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XV(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 11 11x Explanation:(Source: 3). The project involves new trail construction with no changes to currently allowed uses. In addition,the project includes a new parking lot to address existing parking issues and equestrian access issues caused by a lack of horse trailer parking. The Preserve does not presently have equestrian parking spaces. Parking for the Preserve is currently accommodated by an existing Caltrans vista point parking lot(Skeggs Point)at the northern area of the Preserve as well as a small, informal,roadside parking area near Gate CM02. Additional parking occurs along the roadside shoulders in addition to roadside pullouts along Skyline Boulevard. Due to the location of existing available parking,access to the Preserve is primarily limited to the northern area of the Preserve. A parking lot to the south of the Preserve would disperse visitor use across three main trailhead entrances to the Preserve. 70 The proposed 65-car parking lot is anticipated to relieve some of the pressure on the Skeggs Point parking lot and on roadside parking along Skyline Boulevard. The new trails proposed may draw additional users to the Preserve,and it is expected that approximately 40 roadside parking spaces along Skyline Boulevard will be removed due to unsafe parking conditions such as inadequate,narrow shoulder widths and poor lines of sights. The proposed lot would provide visitors with a better alternative to parking along the roadway where shoulders are narrow and lines of sight are an issue. In addition,the proposed lot will help offset the removal of the roadside parking as well as provide a net increase in new parking spaces at the Preserve. The lot would also provide four equestrian spaces where none currently exist. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XV(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 El Ux supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Explanation: (Source: 5,6). The project includes new trail construction and a proposed parking lot with no changes to currently allowed uses. The project is discrete and does not impact alternative modes of transportation along Skyline Boulevard. There is currently no existing bus service along Skyline Boulevard except for samTrans' Community Service bus line 85 which ascends La Honda Road and stops at the intersection of Skyline Boulevard before descending back to the Towns of Woodside and Portola Valley. Alternative congestion relief programs in San Mateo County do not currently include a program for Skyline Boulevard.Therefore,the project will not conflict with any adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation. Transportation/Traffic Section Sources: L Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations.for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No.93-1,July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No.04-01,August 25,2004. 2. LFR Inc.Management and Consulting Engineering. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Improvements Drainage and Grading Plan. August 2007. 3. LFR Inc.Email correspondence with Nick Cartagena,Senior Staff Civil Engineer. January 17,2008;February 4,6,and 7, 2008. 4. Hexagon Transportation Consultants,Inc. El Corte de Madera Staging Area Traffic and Site Access Review. June 2009. 5. San Mateo County Transportation Authority. 2007 Progress Report. 6. San Mateo County Transit District(samTrans). Bus route map for samTrans 85 Community Service. Effective December 23,2007(revise A). 71 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than Would the project: Y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XVI(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El Elx applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? XVI(b)Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Explanation for a and b: The project does not provide water services,would not consume water,and would not generate wastewater.The project thus does not include new or increased needs for wastewater treatment or wastewater treatment facilities. Potentiall Less Than Less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation XVI(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water UX drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Explanation: Sources: 2,3 . The proposed parking lot is located on an existing,previously disturbed area on P ( ) p p p g g p Y the Preserve,limiting impact on the surrounding environment. The project involves the construction of three engineered bioretention basins to collect and treat storm water runoff from the parking lot. The uppermost basin located within the parking lot area will be connected via a riser pipe and 12-inch diameter pipe to a second basin, which will then connect via an overland swale to the third basin. In a 100-year storm event(a"100-year storm" is an event of the magnitude that has a 1%chance of occurrence in any given year),minor overflow would exit the third basin via an overland swale to an existing Caltrans storm water culvert at the edge of Skyline Boulevard. However,as the basins are YP designed to collect and treat typical storm water runoff,it is not g anticipated that runoff will enter the existing Caltrans storm water drainage system. Based on the project's design features,runoff water is expected to remain on site and be treated as it percolates into the ground through a soil matrix specified for storm water filtration. In addition,the construction of the three basins and connecting pipe system are located in an existing,previously disturbed area on the Preserve or outside the limits of existing trees,and are thus not anticipated to cause significant environmental effects. Potentiall Less Than Less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation XVI(d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Ux project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? XVI(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 j provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Explanation for d and e:The project does not provide water services,would not consume water,and would not generate wastewater. 72 Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Signiflcan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XVI(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity x to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? XVI(g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Explanation for questions f and g: (Source: 1).The amount of solid waste generated by the project would be insignificant.The project includes a self-contained,vault restroom facility,which is not connected to the public utility system. A black,built-in ventilation stack is heated by the sun which serves to draw air up and out and also provides air circulation which,coupled with heat,desiccates the effluent. The waste effluent is removed and properly disposed of at least two to three times per year. The District does not provide regular trash collection services,as District ordinances require users to dispose of any refuse brought to the Preserve and prohibit public littering or dumping of any material onto the Preserve. Illegal trash is removed from the Preserve by District maintenance crews and properly disposed of. Utilities and Service Systems Section Sources: 1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No.93-1,July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No.04-01,August 25,2004. 2. LFR Inc.Management and Consulting Engineering. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Improvements Drainage and Grading Plan. August 2007. 3. LFR Inc.Email correspondence with Bill Beaman,Senior Associate Civil Engineer. December 13,2007. 73 XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XVII(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 ❑X ❑ ❑ quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Explanation: As previously discussed in other sections of this document,the project(including mitigation measures incorporated into the project)would not degrade the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in this document(all of which have been incorporated into the project)would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. Less Than Potentiall Significant Less Than y with Significan No Significan Mitigation t Impact Impact t Impact Incorporation XVII(b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑x individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? Explanation: As previously discussed in other sections of this document, the impact analysis identifies possible future open space management projects that may produce related impacts, and then examines how the proposed project and these possible future open space management actions may combine to act cumulatively. In general, the fundamentally low intensity, dispersed nature of the open space management program minimizes the potential for cumulative impacts, since any less than significant impact would generally be site-specific, localized, and not expected to have the potential for considerable combined cumulative impacts throughout the region. The possibility of cumulatively considerable impacts is minimized by the overall lack of disturbance to the watershed as a whole associated with open space use. Unlike residential and economic development projects in urban or suburban areas, the District only implements minimal improvements such as parking lots,unpaved roads, and natural surface trails) within its open space lands. The proposed project,along with similar land management actions by the District or other open space and recreation agencies,would tend to support regional resource protection and enhance public recreational opportunities for local and regional residents and as such have a beneficial combined cumulative impact. 74 Potentiall Less Than less Than Y Significant Significan No Significan with t Impact Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporation XVII(c) Does the project have environmental effects, ❑ 13 ❑ Q which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation: The purpose of the project is four-fold: (1)to enhance and(2)accommodate low- intensity recreation through new trail construction and a new parking lot, (3) enhance traffic safety by providing an improved parking alternative and redirecting roadside parking into an established formal parking lot, and(4)reduce the potential erosion originating from one steep trail segment through a realignment and trail decommissioning. The project improvements aimed to enhance and accommodate low-intensity recreation in open space lands, improve traffic safety along Skyline Boulevard, and reduce trail erosion will not result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. 75 Attachment 9 El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project Public Comments and Responses During the course of public review and Board consideration of the various issues associated with the siting and design of the proposed staging area, the District has received a number of comments from members of the public. Comments not otherwise addressed in the staff report or Initial Study are summarized below together with responses from the District's technical consultants and staff. Traffic Safety Comments 1. Some commenters have stated that the driveway entrance to Skyline Boulevard (also known as Highway 35) has inadequate line-of-sight. The driveway has been designed to provide sight distances in excess of Caltrans requirements. To comply with Caltrans requirements, the driveway must meet minimum sight requirements, which are a function of vehicle speed, which in turn is a function of the radius of the horizontal curve of the roadway. The required sight distance and actual sight distance for the project are as follows: Vehicle Direction Turning Movement Required Sight Project Sight Location Distance Distance North of Southbound Right or left turning vehicle 415 512 Driveway from driveway North of Southbound Left turning vehicle into 415 447 Driveway driveway South of Northbound Right or left turning vehicle 280 498 Driveway from driveway South of Northbound Left turning vehicle into 280 498 Driveway driveway Because in each case the project's actual sight distance is greater than the required sight distance, the driveway entrance has adequate stopping distances and meets Caltrans sight distance requirements.' 2. Some comments stated that the proposed driveway location is dangerous because accidents tend to cluster around intersections and the driveway is proposed in proximity to seven other driveways in a 0.3 mile segment of Skyline Boulevard. The proposed driveway has been designed to meet all Caltrans requirements and engineering best practices for driveways entering State highways. Accidents occur at Page( of 10 intersections due to conflicting vehicle movement at a particular intersection. There is no evidence that the existence of multiple intersections in a given area increases the likelihood of accidents at any specific intersection. This is because accidents arise from vehicle interactions at a specific intersection. Where, as here, the roadway is not subject to congestion, vehicle movements at one intersection have no effect on vehicle movements (or accidents) at nearby intersections. Therefore the proximity of other roadway intersections to the proposed driveway has no effect on the likelihood of accidents at the proposed location.2 3. Several comments state that the project seeks to reduce the speed limit on Skyline Boulevard to 35 miles per hour to satisfy line-of sight requirements and express concern that this is an unrealistic feature of the project because motorists will not obey this speed limit. The project does not propose any change in the speed limit on Skyline Boulevard. As noted in discussion of Comment I above(sight distance comment), the project exceeds Caltrans sight distance requirements. 4. Some comments state that the driveway enters Skyline Boulevard at a dangerous location where traffic, including motorcycles, travels considerably in excess of the speed limit. One commenter has referred to a statement by an unidentified County Sheriff s Deputy that a driveway at the proposed location would be unsafe. There is no evidence that speeds in this location differ from that expected in standard roadway design. The District conducted a radar survey along Skyline Boulevard to identify the maximum observed speeds and 85th percentile speeds. Speed limits typically are set at the 85th percentile speeds. The radar survey was conducted between Gates CM03 and CM04 south of the proposed driveway. In general, the speeds are consistent with the roadway curvature and posted speed limits (45 MPH — 55 MPH). While there were a few vehicles going faster than a prudent speed, the vast majority of vehicles were found to be traveling at or below the speed limit. The speed survey data confirm the design speeds used in the sight distance analysis.3 District staff contacted Lt. Larry Schumaker, Acting Captain—Operations Division, of the San Mateo County Sheriffs Office. He stated that the duties of the Sheriffs Office are primarily in law enforcement and do not include evaluating the adequacy of driveway design. District staff also contacted Lieutenant James Fonseca from the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Lieutenant Fonseca stated that the training and expertise of the CHP is primarily in law enforcement and that the duties of CHP officers do not include evaluating the adequacy of driveway design. The San Mateo County Sheriffs Office and the California Highway Patrol enforce the California Vehicle Code on Skyline Boulevard. Caltrans reviews projects for compliance with applicable traffic safety and other design standards. The project would also be reviewed by San Mateo County.4 Page 2 of 10 5. Some comments state that most of the roads and driveways near the proposed staging area enter from the downhill side of Skyline Boulevard and therefore have little visibility on entering the roadway. Vehicles entering Skyline Boulevard from driveways designed to provide limited visibility must exercise care in entering the roadway. The proposed staging area driveway has been designed to satisfy Caltrans sight distance requirements. The existence of the staging area driveway will not increase the risk of vehicles entering from limited visibility driveways. The existing residential driveway nearest the proposed project serves two houses. It is estimated to serve less than 10 exiting vehicles per day on weekends, when the Preserve is busiest. The probability of a vehicle exiting the residential driveway at the same time as a vehicle using the proposed Preserve driveway is less than I%. Note that vehicles using the Preserve driveway will be more visible to the residential driveway users than is �I existing traffic on Skyline Boulevard.5 6. Some commenters have stated that the proposed driveway is located in an area susceptible to dampness and reduced visibility from fog. This will increase the likelihood of accidents in the area, making the driveway location unsafe. Skyline Boulevard, like all State Highways,has been designed to allow safe vehicle operations in all weather conditions expected in the area in which it is located. Caltrans design standards have been developed to account for a broad range of weather conditions, including localized fog. In the event of an accident, the driveway is designed to provide drivers with sufficient visibility to avoid compounding the accident.6 7. One comment stated that the proposed parking lot would create a traffic hazard equal to or worse than the one at Skeggs Point. Traffic conditions at Skeggs Point are not at issue. The proposed project driveway has been designed to meet Caltrans standards with regard to sight distance and driveway design. Therefore, its operation will be safe. Accidents or accident rates on other segments of Skyline Boulevard are not relevant to the conclusion that the driveway would operate safely.7 8. Some comments stated that the project will add 300-500 car trips per day and that this is excessive because Skyline Boulevard is a busy and congested two-lane roadway. The amount of traffic that might be generated by the proposed parking lot was estimated based on traffic at Skeggs Point. The peak-hour trip generation rate for Skeggs Point's parking lot was the highest on the weekend at a rate of 1.02 trips per parking stall during the peak hour. The proposed parking lot contains a total of 69 parking spaces (65 vehicle spaces and 4 spaces for horse trailers). Using the projected trip generation rate, the proposed parking lot would generate a maximum of 70 peak hour trips. This is based on a conservative assumption that all of the trips generated by the parking lot would be new. Page 3 of 10 In reality, some vehicles that currently park along the roadside would relocate to the lot, as 40 roadside parking spaces along Skyline Boulevard will be removed. Per the 2007 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program and Caltrans, Skyline Boulevard is calculated to have the capacity of 2,240 vehicles per hour, 1,120 vehicles per hour in each direction. According to Caltrans traffic data, the peak hour of traffic volume on Skyline Boulevard occurs on Sunday afternoon and in the vicinity of the Preserve is 120 vehicles during that peak hour, both directions combined (directional volume is not published). This is less than six percent (6%) of the roadway's capacity of 2,240 vehicles per hour. Therefore, it can be concluded that the new traffic generated by the parking lot will not have a substantial impact on the existing traffic load and capacity of Skyline Boulevard.8 9. Some comments express concern that creating a new parking area will encourage increased illegal parking on the shoulder of Skyline Boulevard. The project is expected to reduce illegal parking on the shoulder of Skyline Boulevard by posting"No Parking" signs along Skyline Boulevard in areas used by 40 cars. There is no evidence to indicate that providing increased parking in a parking lot leads to an increase in illegal parking on nearby roadways.9 10. A comment stated that because no fee will be charged for parking in the new parking area, the project will generate additional motor traffic, not just accommodate the existing demand. The project is designed to compensate for the existing roadside parking that would be removed and to redirect existing Preserve visitor use of the Skeggs Point Vista Point parking. The size of the staging area parking component has been scaled back from 85 to 69 spaces, four of which are equestrian parking spaces. Although the purpose of the parking lot is to replace existing parking, the Initial Study for the project considered, as the comment requests, the possibility that the parking lot would generate new trips. The Initial Study notes that up to 70 new trips could occur during the Sunday peak hour whereas during other times of the day and on other days the number of potential additional trips would be less. This level of traffic is insignificant in light of the highway design and capacity of Skyline Boulevard. These projections took into account the fact that the parking was free. The District's traffic engineer reviewed materials on the effects of free parking referenced by the commenter. The materials address free parking in an urban context only and provide no evidence to indicate that free parking at the staging area, which is located in a mountainous rural setting, would lead to traffic levels beyond those projected in the Initial Study. Also, parking by fee in the new Preserve parking lot would not be consistent with the free parking that is provided in all other places along Skyline Boulevard, including Skeggs Point. Parking by fee in one location could lead to undesirable outcomes, such as increased illegal parking along Skyline Boulevard. Parking charges would make the Preserve less accessible to individuals and families with lower incornes.1() Page 4 of 10 11. A commenter asked if the project should include an acceleration lane taper for southbound Skyline Boulevard. The District's design and traffic engineers have determined that due to the low volume of traffic expected at the staging area, no acceleration lane taper for southbound SR 35 is necessary. A turning moving diagram that shows peak hour traffic volume conditions and a sight distance diagram are attached as Exhibits I and 2.11 Comments on Range of Alternatives 1. In discussing project alternatives, some members of the public suggested that locating the staging area somewhere in the four miles between the proposed location and Swett Road would be superior due to the limited number of residences and the absence of limited visibility road entrances. The location of the staging area is constrained by several factors, which make the proposed location the most appropriate site. Steep side slopes and embankments as well as limited sight lines severely limit the number of possible locations. In addition, sites must meet San Mateo County fire and emergency access requirements. Sites also must allow for minimum parking space dimensions and a drive aisle. Other considerations included the feasibility of connecting to the existing Preserve trail system, extent of grading and comparative cost required to create sufficiently flat areas, available space for staging area amenities, number of heritage and other large trees that would require removal, and elimination of existing parking to accommodate access. Subjected to these constraints, the District considered four separate sites shown on Exhibit 3. Sites I and 2 were removed from consideration due to size constraints that precluded the ability to accommodate sufficient parking and provide adequate turnaround or driveway access for fire and emergency vehicles. Site 3 is located in an undisturbed, heavily wooded area of the Preserve and was found to have both limited sight lines onto Skyline Boulevard and require a significant amount of grading to construct two driveways and create a level parking area. Site 4 was rejected because it was not possible to design driveways with sight distances satisfying Caltrans requirements. Any improvements in this location would eliminate at least 10 existing roadside parking spaces providing a net gain of only 15 parking spaces. In addition, these sites would not accomplish the project's objective of redirecting visitor use from the problematic roadside shoulders and Skeggs Point parking lot to an appropriate alternative lot, and also would not disperse Preserve users across multiple existing trail access points for a less concentrated and improved visitor experience. Page 5 of 10 2. Some comments expressed concern that in selecting the proposed site for the staging area, the District gave too much weight to environmental factors such as tree removal, and too little weight to safety considerations. As noted above, the District considered a number of factors in evaluating potential sites for the staging area. Safety was a paramount concern of the District. The site selected meets all Caltrans sight distance and other safety requirements. 3. In considering alternatives some commenters suggested that it would be better to have several smaller parking areas dispersed in different parts of the Preserve rather than establish one large parking lot. As noted above, the District considered several sites along the length of the Preserve, which were limited due to factors such as steep side slopes and embankments. The sites varied in size and accommodated an assorted number of parked cars, but were not selected for the reasons stated above. 4. Some comments stated that alternative locations proposed by Bear Gulch Road Association would be safer. No specific alternative locations have been proposed. The alternatives described above were discussed in public meetings and were ultimately rejected for the reasons described above. 5. In order to reduce traffic, a commenter suggested that funds for the staging area project could be used to as start up funds for a shuttle service from Caltrain to parks along Skyline. The cost of a shuttle service is prohibitive and the District is not able to support transit alternatives on an ongoing basis. The District provides information on using public transit to reach District facilities through a link to Transit to Trails on the District's website, www.openst)ace.org or at littp://www.traiisitandtraits.M. SamTrans provides bus service(Route 85) from the intersection of La Honda and Skyline Boulevard to Menlo Park in the morning and a return trip in the afternoon. Other Comments 1. Some comments expressed concern that in order to improve the line-of-sight for the driveway, the project would remove parking areas on the east side of Skyline Boulevard near CM04 that are used by Wunderlich Park users. The project does not include removal of the parking areas on the east side of Skyline Boulevard near Gate CM04. The east side of Skyline Boulevard opposite Gate CM04 is presently designated as a"No Parking" area and is already signed. The portion of Skyline Boulevard within the required sight distance of the driveway has no parking. The shoulder width is never in excess of approximately three or four feet and cannot Page 6 of 10 accommodate any parking. This entire portion of Skyline is designated as no parking and is not used for parking.12 2. Some commenters stated that the staging area will be an eyesore. The existing topography and surrounding vegetation limit views from both within and outside of the parking lot site. Views are constrained to the immediate surrounding foreground and to the driveway that connects the parking lot to Skyline Boulevard. The topography and vegetation will serve to screen the parking lot from the view of motorists traveling on Skyline Boulevard. In addition, at least 200 feet of thick, vegetated buffer exists between the parking lot and two nearby residential properties: about 100 feet between the site and the roadway and another 100 feet between the roadway and the closest house. The two nearest residences are located 250 to 500 feet north of the proposed parking lot, across from Skyline Boulevard and about 25 to 50 feet below the roadway, with views oriented away from the project area. The parking lot site is located another 25 feet above the roadway. A District owned residence is located approximately 300 feet southeast from the proposed parking lot and is buffered from it by dense, forested vegetation. The parking lot will therefore not have a significant adverse effect on the views from Skyline Boulevard or nearby residences. 3. Some comments suggested that the project should include a toilet at the main staging area as well as a toilet within the Preserve. The project includes a two-stall, unisex, ADA-accessible, self-contained vault restroom facility at the staging area. The District does not install restrooms at sites within Preserves other than at staging areas because access is required for periodic collection and disposal of effluent waste by a service truck. Restrooms are also located at staging areas where they are accessible to a higher concentration of Preserve users as well as visitors with accessibility needs. 4. Some comments stated that the staging area will include only two spaces for horse trailers of up to 15 feet and that this is inadequate. The project includes parking for four horse trailers of up to 25 feet in length. 5. Some comments suggested that the proposed staging area should be located in a less densely populated area to avoid incidents of trespass on private roads and property. The project is located in a sparsely populated area with only six private residences within 1,000 feet of the proposed parking lot. As noted in the discussion of alternative sites, no suitable staging area sites that also meet project goals are available in less densely populated areas. The staging area has been designed to provide direct connection to a number of Preserve trails. Page 7 of 10 6. A commenter suggested that there should be more public transit options to access the Preserve. SamTrans provides bus service (Route 85) from the intersection of La Honda and Skyline Boulevard to Menlo Park in the morning and a return trip in the afternoon. Efforts to develop additional transit access to District facilities have been hampered by the remote locations of the Preserves and the lack of any significant adjoining development to promote a broad ridership base. The District works to cooperate with local transit agencies, encourages carpooling, and offers transportation reimbursement opportunities as stated below. The District has developed a Transportation Assistance Program that provides transportation reimbursements to help defray costs of underfunded schools conducting field trips. The District's Volunteer Program includes carpooling information in its programs and the Docent Program encourages carpooling when appropriate to the event. The District also provides transit to trails information as a link on the District's website, www.openspace.or or at littp://wkvw.ti-aiisi-tandt-rall.s,orf�. 7. A comment states that additional private motor vehicle traffic will increase noise, air pollution, and danger to hikers, cyclists, animals, and other drivers. The Initial Study evaluated impacts to noise, air quality, public safety, and biology. That evaluation was based on a"worst case" assumption that the project would lead to an increase in traffic rather than simply provide replacement parking for existing parking as expected. The analysis in the Initial Study concluded that there would be no significant impacts in any of the referenced resource areas. 8. A commenter suggested that car traffic will increase the carbon footprint of the Preserve. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District recently proposed Guidelines for evaluating the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. They include a significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year for projects such as the staging area. According to modeling conducted during the environmental review process, project traffic will generate approximately 275 metric tons of CO2 per year under the worst case assumption that the staging area will generate new trips. Thus at levels that are one-quarter of the significance threshold the project's emissions, even in the worst case scenario, are not significant. 9. Comments requested additional information on the location of the project and clarification of the graphics in the Initial Study. The map attached as Exhibit 4 shows the project location in more detail. Exhibits 5 and 6 are Figures 5 and 6 from the Initial Study showing arrows indicating the northbound and southbound lanes of Skyline Boulevard. Page 8 of 10 10. Comments suggested that the proposed tree replacement ratio be increased and questioned whether saplings would be adequate to mitigate for the loss of older trees because older trees are critical habitat for a number of species. The staging area plan includes removal of three trees larger than 18 inches in diameter and replacing those trees with 5 gallon redwood trees at a 1:1 ratio. The Initial Study considered the effects of the removal and replacement on wildlife and concluded there would be no significant impact. Specifically, it found that the project design and implementation would not have a significant effect on any special status species or habitat. The project includes measures requiring species surveys prior to construction and policies prohibiting construction activity if nesting species not present at the time of the environmental evaluations conducted for the Initial Study are found to have entered the project area prior to construction. In order to provide additional habitat and aesthetic enhancements staff recommends modifying the tree replacement mitigation to provide for replacement of removed trees with 15 gallon redwoods at a ratio of five new trees for each tree that is removed. A modified mitigation measure is included in the proposed Board resolution for project approval. 11. A commenter requested that Caltrans be notified in the event of a burial discovery during construction. The project as designed includes a mitigation measure calling for cessation of construction and notification of appropriate authorities and experts in the event of a burial discovery during construction. The Board resolution proposed for project approval includes a modified mitigation measure to include Caltrans among the list of agencies to be notified in the event of a discovery. Exhibits Exhibit I —Turning moving diagram Exhibit 2— Sight distance diagram Exhibit 3 —Alternative Staging Area sites Exhibit 4—Project map Exhibit 5— Initial Study Figure 5 showing northbound and southbound lanes of Skyline Blvd. Exhibit 6— Initial Study Figure 6 showing northbound and southbound lanes of Skyline Blvd. Page 9 of'10 References Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,G. Black,February 4,2010. 2 Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants,Inc.,G. Black,February 4,2010. 3 Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,G.Black, February 4,2010. 4 November 17,2009 Communication to Planning Manager Ana Ruiz, Lieutenant James Fonseca,Field Operations Officer,California Highway Patrol;January 22,2010 Letter from Lt. Larry Schumaker,Acting Captain—Operations Division, San Mateo County Sheriffs Department. Memorandum from Hexagon'Transportation Consultants, Inc. G. Black,February 4,2010. Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,G. Black,February 4,2010. Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,G. Black,February 4,2010 Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,G. Black,February 4,2010. 10 Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,G. Black, February 4,2010. " Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants,Inc.,G. Black,February 4,2010. 12 Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,G. Black,February 4,2010. Page 10 of 10 Siry SITE ENTRANCE RESIDENTIAL ` ^ A DRIVEWAY v` ' � o , \\ �I #CARSiHOUR I �24 I IR Hexagon PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES N., A Transportation Consultants,Inc. El Corte De Madera Open Space Preserve Traffic Analysis Z`O RESIDENTIAL s]� DRIVEV4rAY SITE ENTRANCE 498, GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 200 400 0'Y, ( IN FEET ) J 1 INCH = 100 FT E X H I B P"qHexagon SIGHT DISTANCE b.,i Transportation Consultants,Inc. El Corte De Madera Open Space Preserve Traffic Analysis El Corte de Madera Creek Recommended Parking Area and Trail Improvements \: 1 is Landing Zone District Residence '~ O Numbered Gate — — — Proposed Trail Alignment '`-. ••• •• Proposed Trail Realignment California Water Service Company -' SITE 1 Proposed Trail Closure �. o1 ......_........ Exists rail M1.. SITE 2 f cM Existing T ` SITE 3 Minor Unpaved Road __._:' ;` Minor Paved Road Highway 35 El Corte de Madera Creek OSP,-' District Preserve Other public Open Space ' Watershed Land .. .� .... • �aenuelanT cMos p/,ethose/ah ` Purisima Creek Redwoods �� :t' /F —•Uti Open Space Teague Hill Preserve Open Space cakronma �. SITE 4 water Sens Company Recommended `. P Parking Area El orte de Madera " eek Redwoo - Wun"rich (r ds TraA q. Open Space county 41, -..., -_CM03 -.e," — - Park 3 4P `:.. c CIAO .:. 0 275 550 1,100 1,550 Feet EXHIBIT 3 GrPmpCNEIConeDeMaoeraner 3:agr�Area5lag�g Area 01 ZOOSymtri inabnq 'dd EXHIBIT 4 =e & gW -F-T t s ;, j� SKYL/VE 94 Vp- �/ � (hWY. 35) Iz 3 I - ------------------ LLM mmi ol crurwc re' 1�' cia trw} s 1 �,+,,' - nwswix M•' - �q��-_ i f1 / �lciof i i �,,.�.��t' � �]• �i��.! .•'� �•\ ynru svu rrcram nwrnc/1 tlJ GRAPHIC SCALE � Y( REE PROPOSED , FOR2EIIltOA Y�""� FOR • c ________ S©UTHBOUND APPROXIMATE LOCATION LANE _... :... . . F 'RPSED DRIVEWAY NORTHBOUND ENTRANCE (NOT Tt) 'SDALFj LANE -'--♦ A ram,, t+REE PROPOSED TREE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL FOR REMOVAL , . ., � a - ,. E LOCATION - g RIVEWAY Is a s I EXHIBIT 31 (revised 02-10-10) El Corte de Madera Creek Recommended Parking Area and Trail Improvements Landing Zone .V, < District Residence 0 Numbered Gate — — — Proposed Trail Alignment ...... e oe Proposed Trail Realignment California Water Service Company SITE 3 Proposed Trail Closure CM01 ................... Existing Trail SITE I SITE 2 Minor Unpaved Road Minor Paved Road ........... Highway 35 IVI Corte de Nadera Creek OSP District Preserve Other public Open Space Watershed Land I-- CM02 tMA h Purisima Creek Redwoods 0_1 Open Space Teague Hill Preserve Open Space j erve Cat fI aS." r_j SITE 4 i 'N coC p-- ,.a Recommended Parking Area j El Corte de Madera J reek Redwoods a Wuldwilch S 40" -F,ail Open Space C__V M03 PWk W CM %I A L HS % *Me lk 0 275 550 1,100 1,650 ............. Feet r Midpeninsula Regional • ' Open Space District r � To: Board of Directors From: Stephen E. Abbors ' I Date: February 10, 2010 I Re: 2"d Public Comments BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL COLINCIL Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos California 94022 Re: Meeting 10-05, Item 5 9 February 2010 Honorable members of the board The Bay Area Ridge Trail Council (BARTC) has long supported District plans to establish 1.4 miles of new multi-use Ridge Trail and a staging area in El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve. BARTC has provided financial support for a study to detennine the feasibility of siting the trail and staging area at the Preserve; we also provided technical advice and recommendations throughout the planning process to date. The District spent considerable time and expertise to develop a plan in response to the challenges of the site. Traffic improvements, resource protection and recreation management have been addressed. The resulting project as planned will improve access to the Preserve, and reduce safety hazards associated with traffic, parking conditions and the informal trail crossing of Hwy 35 at Wunderlich County Park. BARTC supports adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program for the staging area and trails project, and we are hopeful that the next steps necessary to prepare for the construction phase can be accomplished quickly. Regards Bern Smith South Bay Trail Director cc: Ana Ruiz Tina Hugg 1007 GENERAL KENNEDY AVENUE, SUITE 3, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94129-1405 (415) 561-2595 FAX: (415) 561-2599 INFO@ RIDGETRAIL.ORG WWW.RIDGETRAIL.ORG Page 1 of 1 t Tina Hugg From: Sue Schectman Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:45 PM To: Tina Hugg Subject: FW: El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve proposed parking improvements From: David Holland [mailto:dholland@co.sanmateo.ca.us] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:49 AM To: Ana Ruiz Cc: Sue Schectman Subject: El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve proposed parking improvements Ana, San Mateo County Parks fully supports MROSD's plan for the proposed parking lot to serve visitors to the District's El Cor te de Madera ro S Open ace Preserve. I have reviewed the proposal osal on site an i w' P P d t ill significantly improve traffic safety on Highway 35 by removingproblematic roadside parking. P P 9 Regards, Dave ae David G. Holland Director San Mateo County Department of Parks 455 County Center, 4th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone: (650) 599-1393 Fax: (650) 599-1721 i i Ave Paper,Think Before You Print. 2/9/2010 Tina Hugg From: Vicky Gou Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:40 PM To: Sue Schectman Cc: Tina Hugg Subject: FW: 02/08/2010-jeff@scalevp.corn -Contact Board Public comment received via online Board forms -----Original Message----- From: jeff@scalevp.com [mailto:jeff@scalevp.com] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3 :19 PM To: Vicky Gou; General Information; BOARD Subject: 02/08/2010 - jeff@scalevp.com - Contact Board First Name: Jeff Last Name: Calcagno Phone Number: (650) 787-6499 Email Address: jeff@scalevp.com Ward / Location: Woodside Comments: I remain very concerned about road safety at the site being proposed for the new parking lot on Skyline. I enter Skyline from Bear Gulch East every morning and I can attest to how fast vehicles come around that corner. My understanding is that you are aware that the distance between the proposed parking lot entrance and this curve does not allow for adequate line of sight. I predict that this situation will result in additional motor vehicle accidents. (I would be curious to know if the Sheriff has any similar concerns. ) I agree that the current situation is not optimal. But the new lot located where you are proposing would be worse. My understanding is that you considered two smaller sites with better visibility but less capacity. I would rather see two smaller, safer sites than one larger, less safe lot. Thanks for considering my concerns. Jeff Calcagno, M.D. 33 Bear Glen Road Woodside l Tina Hugg From: Ana Ruiz Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 8:48 AM To: Tina Hugg Subject: FW: 02/07/2010 -eric@eweiner.org -Contact Board Importance: High Please print, add to public record. We need to compile comments to hand to the Board. - Ana -----Original Message----- From: Steve Abbors Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:50 PM To: Sue Schectman; Ana Ruiz Subject: FW: 02/07/2010 - eric@eweiner.org - Contact Board Importance: High Re: ECDM - FYI - Steve Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (650) 691-1200 (Office Line) (650) 691-0485 (Facsimile) sabbors@openspace.org www.openspace.org -----Original Message----- From: eric@eweiner.org [mailto:eric@eweiner.org] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:49 PM To: Vicky Gou; General Information; BOARD Subject: 02/07/2010 - eric@eweiner.org - Contact Board First Name: Eric Last Name: Weiner Phone Number: 6503462197 Email Address: eric@eweiner.org Ward / Location: 1650 Bear Gulch Rd, Woodside, CA Comments: Please enter this into the public record for consideration at the Feb. 10 Regular Board Meeting relating to the new Staging Area for El Corte Madera OSP. I am writing to object to the planned closure of Gate CM04 in conjunction with the planned parking lot and staging area in El Corte Madera OSP. I use this gate frequently to access the preserve from the top of Wunderlich or Bear Gulch East. The proposed closure will entail that I and others travel along Skyline to access the the preserve. This will decrease safety rather than increase it. In addition, hikers from Wunderlich will want direct access to EDCM rather than taking a 1, 000 detour as proposed. Closure of this gate makes no sense to me. Please abandon this part of the plan. This part of the plan will decrease usage of the preserve rather than encourage additional usage. Thank you for your consideration. 1 Page 1 of 2 t i I Ana Ruiz i From: Alan Robinson [aIan.arobinson@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:02 PM To: Jeff Calcagno Cc: Anna Duong; Ana Ruiz; bern_smith@ridgetrail.org; caroleeee@juno.com; chucko@chucko.com; dhuchig@hotmail.com; discus@gmail.com; drsusan@stanford.edu; envirohorse@yahoo.com; eric@weiner.org; estipular@earthlink.net; geohaye@yahoo.com;je11293@yahoo.com; jenbasiji@sbcgiobal.net;josh.moore@comcast.net; karinelanders@hotmail.com; kaufman@cs.stanford.edu; kctjordan@mac.com; kdgizmo@aol.com; ken@fi.com; Iferb@ix.netcom.com; menager@pacbell.net; mike.bushue@sun.com; mmurray@macconnect.com; msandhill@aol.com; mtbiker@earthlink.net-, mtbiker@g mail.com; nacalcagno@gmail.com; nannygayla@aol.com; patty@ecocyclist.org; sandy@toofar.net; sbay@ridgetrail.org; stratum@comcast.net; timeres@pacbell.net; valeriespier@yahoo.com; velorution@yahoo.com-, wewranch@msn.com; anne@wrightspeed.org; ian@wrightspeed.org Subject: Re: FW: MROSD: Feb. 10, 2010 -Special and Regular Meeting One of the issues here is the difficulty that large horse trailers will have negotiating the hard right turn into the lot. Tf/when the accident predicted below occurs, it's likely that a horse trailer will be involved. We do need parking and bathroom facilities up there, but putting in spaces for large trailers is inviting disaster. Sincerely, A. Robinson On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Jeff Calcagno <Jeff i),,scalevp.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Rttiz and other planners at MROSD A physician. resident of Bear Glen Road_and daily commuter on Skyline. I would like to <vo on record as predicting that the construction and use ofthe proposed parkinu, lot would. within the 3-5 wars following, completion of the project, directly or indirectly result in motor vehicle accidents, and probable at least one death, that would not have occurred without the project. There resources needed to adequately police Skvhne Road in this section are already strained beyond capacity. The site distances proposed are inadequate and the increased traffic that vvill be drawn to Skyline as a result of this parking, lot will be unsafe. As I stated at one of the public sessions held about this proposed project, I believe that adequate consideration has not been 11iveu to this issue and that the ,croups planning this project(MROSI), etc.)have swept this concern under the;catIM in all attempt to force this project throu�U1h. I would like my prediction ahove to be entered its part oFthe public record with respect to this project. so that when my prediction comes throw(Ih_those pLlSllin1_ tlu-oufh this project Without,adequate consdieaation of the safety issues will be held responsible. Unfortunately, this; will he of little solace to those inured Or killed in the vehicle accidents. I I hanks for considering my point ofvievv on this topic and for entering into the public record. Jeff Calcauno. M.D. 33 E3car Glen Road W oodsidc. CA 9-002 2/8/2010 Page 2 of 2 From: Anna Duong [mailto:aduons4(((7openspace.org] Sent: Friday,February 05,2010 5:07 PM To: alan.arobinson a,gmail.com; bern smithnridaetrail.orQ;caroleeeeniuno.cotn;ehuckonchucko.com; dhuchignhotmail.com; discus a{gmail.com; drsusan a,stanford.edu;envirohorse(a)vahoo.com; eric((i-,weiner.or<,; estipularnearthlink.net; geohave(q-)yahoo.com;jel 1293 a yahoo.com;jenbasi'i a,sbc lobal.net; iosh.moore(a�eomcast.net; karinelanders a�� hotmail.com kautinan a c .s stan ford.edu; kctiordan(c?mac.com; kd�tzmo a,aoLcotn; kenafi.com, Iferb(i�,ix.netcom.coin; menagernpacbell.net;mike.bush uensun.corn; mmurray a macconnect.com; msandhill waol.com; nitbiker a earthIink.net; mtbikerngmaiLcom; nacalcaano(a gym ail.com; nannyRayla a aol.com;patty a ecocvclist.org; sandvntoofar.net; sbav(a�rid etrail.org; stratumncomcast.net;timeres a,pacbell.net; valeriespiernvahoo.com; velorutionnvahoo.com; wewranch naqnsn.corn Subject: MROSD: Feb. 10,2010- Special and Regular Meeting Dear Subscribers, Agenda and related documents are now available for review and download at http://www.opensi)ace.or��/about us/tneetings.asp. Thank you for your interest in MROSD. Regards, Anna. Amia Duono Interim District Clerk,'OH'ice Manager aduon,-, openspace.org Ntidpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos. Cif 94022 1-: (650)691-1200 x574 j F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org I Twitter: @mrosd Alan A. Robinson email: alan.arobinson a gmail.com mobile: 650 823 2131 i i 2/8/2010 Page 1 of 3 Ana Ruiz From: Joshua Hart [velorution@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 1:38 PM To: Jeff Calcagno; Anna Duong; Ana Ruiz Cc: aIan.arobinson@gmail.com; bern_smith@ridgetrail.org; caroleeee@juno.com; chucko@chucko.com; dhuchig@hotmail.com; discus@gmail.com; drsusan@stanford.edu; envirohorse@yahoo.com; eric@weiner.org; estipular@earthlink.net; geohaye@yahoo.com; je11293@yahoo.com; jenbasiji@sbcglobal.net-,josh.moore@comcast.net; karinelanders@hotmaiLcom; kaufman@cs.stanford.edu; kctjordan@mac.com; kdgizmo@aol.com; ken@fi.com; Iferb@ix.netcom.com-, menager@pacbell.net; mike.bush ue@sun.com; mmurray@macconnect.com; msandhill@aol.com; mtbiker@earthlink.net; mtbiker@gmail.com; nacalcagno@gmail.com; nannygayla@aol.com; patty@ecocyclist.org; sandy@toofar.net; sbay@ridgetrail.org; stratum@comcast.net; timeres@pacbell.net; valeriespier@yahoo.com; wewranch@msn.com; anne@wrightspeed.org; ian@wrightspeed.org Subject: Re: MROSD: Feb. 10, 2010 -Special and Regular Meeting Dear MROSD, I'd like to add my comments to those expressed by Mr. Calcagno below. As a professional transportation planner, I find it particularly galling that the MROSD is planning to expand motor vehicle facilities and access at a time when we desperately need to transition away from car dependence to protect the natural communities that the district is meant to protect . I've sent a letter to this effect several months ago but have not yet received a reply. Perhaps we could see a report of how the funding could be better spent providing a regular shuttle service to take people from Caltrain to open space areas along Skyline. This would provide for ALL Bay Area residents, including the hundreds of thousands of Bay Area households without access to a motor vehicle. The year is 2010. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest they have been in 2 million years. The last thing we need is more parking! Sincerely, Josh Hart Menlo Park From: Jeff Calcagno <Jeff@SCALEVP.COM> To: "aduong@openspace.org" <aduong@openspace.org>; "aruiz@openspace.org" <aruiz@openspace.org> Cc: "alan.arobinson@gmail.com" <alan.arobinson@gmail.com>; "bern_smith@ridgetrail.org" <bern_smith@ridgetrail.org>; "caroleeee@juno.com" <caroleeee@juno.com>; "chucko@chucko.com" <chucko@chucko.com>; "dhuchig@hotmaiLcom" <dhuchig@hotmaiLcom>; "discus@gmail.com" <discus@gmaiI.com>; "drsusan@stanford.edu" <drsusan@stanford.edu>; "envirohorse@yahoo.com" <envirohorse@yahoo.com>; "eric@weiner.org" <eric@weiner.org>; "estipular@earthlink.net" <estipular@earthlink.net>; "geohaye@yahoo.com" <geohaye@yahoo.com>; "je11293@yahoo.com" <je11293@yahoo.com>; "jenbasiji@sbcglobal.net" <jenbasiji@sbcglobal.net>; "josh.moore@comcast.net" <josh.moore@comcast.net>; "karinelanders@hotmaiLcom" <karinelanders@hotmaiLcom>; "kaufman@cs.stanford.edu" <kaufman@cs.stanford.edu>; "kctjordan@mac.com" <kctjordan@mac.com>; "kdgizmo@aol.com" <kdgizmo@aol.com>; "ken@fi.com" <ken@fi.com>; "Iferb@ix.netcom.com" <Iferb@ix.netcom.com>; "menager@pacbell.net" <menager@pacbell.net>; "mike.bush ue@sun.com" <mike.bushue@sun.com>; "mmurray@macconnect.com" <mmurray@macconnect.com>; "msandhill@aol.com" 2/8/2010 Page 2 of 3 i <msandhill@aol.com>; "mtbiker@earthlink.net" <mtbiker@earthlink.net>; "mtbiker@gmaiLcom" <mtbiker@gmail.com>; "nacalcagno@gmaiLcom" <nacalcagno@gmail.com>; "nannygayla@aol.com" ! <nannygayla@aol.com>; "patty@ecocyclist.org" <patty@ecocyclist.org>; "sandy@toofar.net" <sandy@toofar.net>; "sbay@ridgetrail.org" <sbay@ridgetrail.org>; "stratum@comcast.net" <stratum@comcast.net>; "timeres@pacbel1.net" <timeres@pacbell.net>; "valeriespier@yahoo.com" <valeriespier@yahoo.com>; "velorution@yahoo.com" <velorution@yahoo.com>; "wewranch@msn.com" <wewranch@msn.com>; "anne@wrightspeed.org" <anne@wrightspeed.org>; "ian@wrightspeed.org" <ian@wrightspeed.org> Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 12:16:44 PM Subject: FW: MROSD: Feb. 10, 2010 - Special and Regular Meeting Dear Ms. Ruiz and other planners at MROSD A physician, resident of Bear Glen Road, and daily commuter on Skyline, I would like to go on record as predicting that the construction and use of the proposed parking lot would, within the 3-5 years following completion of the project, directly or indirectly result in motor vehicle accidents, and probably at least one death, that would not have occurred without the project. There resources needed to adequately police Skyline Road in this section are already strained beyond capacity. The site distances proposed are inadequate and the increased traffic that will be drawn to Skyline as a result of this parking lot will be unsafe As I stated at one of the public sessions held about this proposed project, I believe that adequate consideration has not been given to this issue and that the groups planning this project (MROSD, etc.) have swept this concern under the carpet in an attempt to force this project through. I would like my prediction above to be entered as part of the public record with respect to this project, so that when my prediction comes through, those pushing through this project without adequate consdieration of the safety issues will be held responsible. Unfortunately, this will be of little solace to those inured or killed in the vehicle accidents. Thanks for considering my point of view on this topic and for entering into the public record. Jeff Calcagno, M.D. 33 Bear Glen Road Woodside, CA 94062 From: Anna Duong [mailto:aduong@openspace.org] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 5:07 PM To: alan.arobinson@gmaiLcom; bern_smith@ridgetrail.org; caroleeee@juno.com; chucko@chucko.com; dhuchig@hotmail.com; discus@gmailcom; drsusan@stanford.edu; envirohorse@yahoo.com; eric@weiner.org; estipular@earthlink.net; geohaye@yahoo.com; je11293@yahoo.com; jenbasiji@sbcglobal.net; josh.moore@comcast.net; karinelanders@hotmail.com; kaufman@cs.stanford.edu; kcgordan@mac.com; kdgizmo@aol.com; ken@fi.com; Iferb@ix.netcom.com; menager@pacbell.net; mike.bushue@sun.com; mmurray@macconnect.com; msandhill@aol.com; mtbiker@earthlink.net; mtbiker@gmaiLcom; nacalcagno@gmaiLcom; nannygayla@aol.com a @ecoc clist.or • sand toofar.n et sba ri p nY @ d etrail.or •Y 9� Y � Y@ 9 9� stratum@comcast.net• timeres acbell.n et valeries i @p per@yahoo.com; velorution@yahoo.com; wewranch@msn.com Subject: MROSD: Feb. 10, 2010 - Special and Regular Meeting p 9 9 Dear Subscribers, Agenda and related documents are now available for review and download at http://www.openspace.org/about us/meetings.asp. Thank you for your interest in MROSD. Regards, Anna. i Anna Duong Interim District Clerk/Office Manager 2/8/2010 Page 3 of 3 aduong(a-)openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 T: (650) 691-1200 x574 I F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org I Twitter: mrosd 2/8/2010 Page 1 of 2 r Ana Ruiz From: Jeff Calcagno [Jeff@SCALEVP.COM] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 12:17 PM To: Anna Duong; Ana Ruiz Cc: alan.ar i ob nson mail.com� bern smi th rid etrail.or - r @ ca oleeee �uno.com�9 _ @ 9 9, @� , chucko@chucko.com; dhuchig@hotmail.com; discus@gmail.com; drsusan@stanford.edu; envirohorse@yahoo.com; j eric@weiner.org; estipular@earthlink.net; geohaye@yahoo.com;je11293@yahoo.com; jenbasiji@sbcglobal.net;josh.moore@comcast.net; karinelanders@hotmail.com; kaufman@cs.stanford.edu; kctjordan@mac.com; kdgizmo@aol.com; ken@fi.com; Iferb@ix.netcom.com; menager@pacbell.net; mike.bushue@sun.com; mmurray@macconnect.com; msandhill@aol.com; mtbiker@earthlink.net; mtbiker@gmail.com; nacalcagno@gmail.com; nannygayla@aol.com; patty@ecocyclist.org; sandy@toofar.net; sbay@ridgetrail.org; stratum@comcast.net; timeres@pacbell.net; valeriespier@yahoo.com; velorution@yahoo.com; wewranch@msn.com; anne@wrightspeed.org; ian@wrightspeed.org Subject: FW: MROSD: Feb. 10, 2010 - Special and Regular Meeting Dear Ms. Ruiz and other planners at MROSD: A physician, resident of Bear Glen Road, and daily commuter on Skyline, I would like to go on record as predicting that the construction and use of the proposed parking lot would, within the 3-5 years following completion of the project, directly or indirectly result in motor vehicle accidents, and probably at least one death, that would not have occurred without the project. There resources needed to adequately police Skyline Road in this section are already strained beyond capacity. The site distances proposed are inadequate and the increased traffic that will be drawn to Skyline as a result of this parking lot will be unsafe. As I stated at one of the public sessions held about this proposed project, I believe that adequate consideration has not been given to this issue and that the groups planning this project(MROSD, etc.) have swept this concern under the carpet in an attempt to force this project through. I would like my prediction above to be entered as part of the public record with respect to this project, so that when my prediction comes through, those pushing through this project without adequate consdieration of the safety issues will be held responsible. Unfortunately, this will be of little solace to those inured r ed o killed in h Y to vehicle accidents. Thanks for considering my point of view on this topic and for entering into the public record. Jeff Calcagno, M.D. 33 Bear Glen Road Woodside, CA 94062 From: Anna Duong [mailto:aduong@openspace.org] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 5:07 PM To: alan.arobinson@gmail.com; bern_smith@ridgetrail.org; caroleeee@juno.com; chucko@chucko.com; dhuchig@hotmail.com; discus@gmail.com; drsusan@stanford.edu; envirohorse@yahoo.com; eric@weiner.org; estipular@earthlink.net; geohaye@yahoo.com; je11293@yahoo.com; jenbasiji@sbcglobal.net; josh.moore@comcast.net; karinelanders@hotmail.com; kaufman@cs.stanford.edu; kctjordan@mac.com; kdgizmo@aol.com; ken@fi.com; Iferb@ix.netcom.com; menager@pacbell.net; mike.bushue@sun.com; mmurray@macconnect.com; msandhill@aol.com; mtbiker@earthlink.net; mtbiker@gmail.com; nacalcagno@gmail.com; nannygayla@aol.com; patty@ecocyclist.org; sandy@toofar.net; sbay@ridgetrail.org; stratum@comcast.net; timeres@pacbell.net; valeriespier@yahoo.com; velorution@yahoo.com; wewranch@msn.com Subject: MROSD: Feb. 10, 2010 - Special and Regular Meeting Dear Subscribers, Agenda and related documents are now available for review and download at 2/8/2010 Page 2 of 2 http://www.ot)enspace.org/about us/meetings.asp. Thank you for your interest in MROSD. Regards, Anna. Anna Duong Interim District Clerk/Office Manager aduong(c-r ogenspace.orq Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 T: (650) 691-1200 x574 ( F (650) 691-0485 www,openspace.org Twitter: amrosd I 2/8/2010 Page 1 of 1 Tina Hugg From: Jeff Calcagno [Jeff@SCALEVP.COM] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:55 AM To: Ana Ruiz Cc: Vicky Gou; Tina Hugg Subject: two questions for tonight's public discussion of El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project Dear Ms. Ruiz, Unfortunately, I need to fly to Texas today on business and cannot attend tonight. I have communicated some of my objections to the proposed parking lot project. I have also asked someone to voice the following two questions on my behalf. But if this does not happen, I would like the following two questions addressed by the project planners and for these two questions to be entered into the public record. I know that you don't agree with my point of view, but I appreciate your willingness to air and address my questions in my absence. 1. Of the sites considered by MROSD, was the current site the safest(in terms of road safety—line of sight)? 2. If not, and if other potential sites were safer but rejected because they were smaller, would it be possible to build two smaller sites instead of one larger one? Also, I continue to be concerned about the increased fire hazard. MROSD's own findings were that the new lot could generate up to 315 additional vehicular trips per day. Thank you. Sincerely, Jeff Calcagno, M.D. 33 Bear Glen Road Woodside, CA 94062 i 2/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Steve Abbors From: Kenneth Nitz [ken.nitz@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:06 PM To: Steve Abbors; BOARD; Ana Ruiz Subject: Comments and Questions on ECM Parking Lot Neg Dec for 2/10 meeting Follow Up Flag:: Follow up Flag Status: Purple All; There is one problem I've always had with Neg Declaration. It only deals with the effect of the development on the localized area and not on the effect to the surrounding land. Here we have a parking lot that will bring in more people to a preserve that the District has spent over $1 million to fix the problems caused by too many people on a fragile and steep preserve, and yet the Neg Dec does not say anything about what mitigations must be done to preserve the surrounding lands. It doesn't event say what will be done to keep people from parking on Skyline, or from over- parking at Skeggs (it has only about 25-30 legal spaces, but I've seen up to 48 there on weekends). The Neg Dec doesn't say how they will stop people from parking in the horse trailer locations, nor along the driveway. Will there be no-parking signs? Will they be enforced? Will there be an effort to leaflet the people who currently park along Skyline, telling them of the new lot (when open)? Will the District try to convice Caltrans to put up barriers in the non-legal parking areas of Skeggs to reduce the number of people using the preserve? The new parking lot will double the number of users, but there is no mitigation for their effects on the preserve. Will there be monitoring of the effectiveness of this new parking lot on removing people from parking on the street at least for the first year or so? And monitor any increase in problems at ECM? Just some comments and questions. It is better then it was years ago, but I worry about its effects. thanks --ken Ken Nitz 2/10/2010 r ' ( Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District To: Board of Directors From: Stephen E. Abbors Date: February 10, 2010 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Comments I Page loF3 Tina Hugg From: msandhill@aol.com Sent Fridav, NovomberOS. 2008141 PM To: 7lnaHugg Cc: dh@hannig|aw.00m;jhb@hannkJ|aw.com; PWSandH|LL@aoicom Subject: Re: Open for Public Comment: ECOM Parhing/StygingArea and Trails Project N0 and Mitigated � Negative Declaration � Hello Ms. Hugg. My name is Mark Sanders, and I have attended a number of"public hearings" and written letters to MPROSD on this project as President of the Bear Gulch Road Association and as a neighbor. Together with other residents we object to the location ofa driveway onan already dangerous curve with insufficient line-of-site, co-sited with seven other driveways in a very short section of Skyline Boulevard (Highway 35). Our reason for objecting is the unsafe condition it presents, and vvehave � invested considerable effort to show why its an unsafe plan, when alternatives which present little risk public safety are available. Unfortunately at the several public hearings neighbors who affected by this plan left frustrated and angry at our treatment b K8PROSOata�-nnom�necenUybeing �o|dourobiecUonawou|db� heand "e�the �ndof � . � the public rneedng'', then told we would not be heard at all because they "already knew what our � objections were". Those objections on safety alternative locations suggested byorespected � engineering firm, and comments from law enforcement representatives ("this plan would be a disaster") have not been responded to. W1PRO8D staff admits"other(aafer) sites were not considered because safety was subordinated to higher criteria such as number of trees to be removed". K8PRO8OtraMio consultants confirmed in fact they never considered an alternative over miles of frontage and only addressed the single location pushed byMPROGD. MPROSD proposes to mitigate the fact that this location fails County and State line-of-site criteria by � reducing the highway speed to3S mph and removing most ofthe | | � Skyline parking forVVundedich Park. Law enforcement officials state that reducing the speed limit to 35 in ! a location that has very high-speed traffic (especially motorcycles) will be ineffective and the plan will no doubt result in accidents. This stretch of Skyline Boulevard is known "raceway" for motorcycles � which often do 70-80 mph and cannot possibly stop for traffic turning into the proposed parking lot. The VVunder|ioh Park parking spaces that K8PROSD wants bo remove ho improve its |ine-of-oibs have been in place for decades, yet MPROSD declares it"deficient parking with poor line of site and insufficient shoulder width" The effect of displacing these parking spots will be to force Wunderlich visitors to even more unsafe parking. VVe ask that the Mitigated Negative Declaration not be adopted until the legitimate safety concerns ofthe several hundred people who live in this area have been honestly and satisfactorily addressed. Sincerely, Mark Sanders Original Message----- From: Tina H <thuQg@openspaua.org, To: msandhiU@ooicom | Sent: Tue. Oct G. 2OOQS:31 pm � | Subject Open for Public Comment: ECDK4 Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project N{}| and Mitigated � Negative Declaration 2/9/2010 Page 2 of 3 Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser. ft Nlidperainsula RegriOrWl (open Space District El Corte de Madera Creep Parkin(;/Staging Area acid 'fry ils Project Notice of Intent and Mitigated Negative Declaration The El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails Project Notice of Intent and Mitigated Negative Declaration are now open for public review and comment. Below are links to the Notice of Intent and Mitigated Negative Declaration on the District's website: Notice of Intent tipDp Mid ated Necicative Declaration riper The public review period begins on October 6, 2009 and ends on November 6, 2009. Please complete your review and submit written comments, if any, no later than 5:00 p.m. on the closing date to the following address: Tina Hugg, Open Space Planner II Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Project Description The project consists of the construction of a new 65-vehicle, four-horse trailer parking and staging area at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve), a 0.25-mile connector trail, a 1.75-mile perimeter trail, a 0.2-mile trail realignment, and restoration of 0.7 miles of abandoned trail; installation of "No Parking" signs to remove approximately 40 roadside parking spaces on Skyline Boulevard; and relocation of an existing Skyline Boulevard trail/pedestrian crossing. The proposed parking area would serve as the Preserve's first dedicated parking area. All current parking occurs along the Skyline Boulevard roadside or at a Caltrans vista point parking lot known as Skeggs Point Lot. The proposed trails would connect the new parking area to the existing trail system, enhance public access in the eastern part of the Preserve, and address erosion issues on an existing trail alignment. The "No Parking" signs would eliminate deficient roadside parking spaces with poor lines of sight and 2/9/2010 insufficient shoulder width. The purpose of relocating the roadway � trail/pedestrian crossing would be to improve trail user and traffic safety as trail users travel between the Preserve and the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Purpose of Notice The Midpeninsu|a Regional (]pen Space District is recommending that Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved for this project. District Planning Staff have reviewed the Initial Study for the project, and based upon substantial evidence in � � the record, finds that although the proposed project could initially have m � significant effect on the environment, changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project to avoid or reduce impacts to a point where no � significant effects will occur. It should be noted that the approval of Mitigated � Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the project under considcratinn. The decision to approve or deny the project will be made separately. m»c,cst, mattmu.nnnomuuooe,en/ UooUbxcribe nis rz �U���a Lco"z »nm the ecom Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails pmjcctou our Mailing address is: wmpe^msma Regional Open spooms,ncL sz000tc| Circle msmtoo' CA, 94022 coprnom (c) zooy mmue^/owaa°n`on^| onco spucz oisvwum/ nnx� reserved Forward thil, amm/ tnafriend � | � | 2/9/2OlO Page 1 of 1 Tina Hugg From: Ana Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:27 AM To: Tina Hu 99 Subject: FW: Corte Madera potential parking. From: Ken Fisher[mailto:Ken@fi.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:44 AM To: Ana Ruiz Cc: Sue Schectman Subject: Corte Madera potential parking. For Ana Ruiz Planning Manager Anna, I understand there is the possibility of establishing a parking facility on the west side of Skyline Blvd/Hwy 35 providing direct access to the Corte Madera Preserve. That would be outstanding indeed. You know the current situation which is that people park at Skeggs Point or along Skyline but the fundamental problem is people crossing Skyline in an area that simply isn't save. Often drivers swerve and hikers are walking along the highway in an area where there is no safe or lace f the m em to walk as they attempt to get to CM01 or CM02. Skyline is an 87 year old road suffering traffic and recreational usage in total greater than its ever seen and yet in the fog, in the late afternoon, in the shadows of trees as the sun is setting, it is a very dangerous place to be. Providing Westside parking with direct access to the preserve not only would improve safety for preserve users but also relieve the tension for non-related drivers. The costs of doing this can't be more than miniscule but the potential benefits are huge. As your long-time immediate next door neighbor to PC01 I know that on the one hand parking facilities aren't invasive and on the other hand immediate western access is blessed. Thanks. Ken Fisher 13100 Skyline Blvd Woodside, CA 94062 650-851-3334 PLEASE READ THIS WARNING: Investment in securities involves the risk of loss. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Other methods may produce different results, and the results for different periods may vary depending on market conditions and the composition of the portfolio. Warning: For your own protection, avoid sending identifying information such as social security or account numbers to us or others via email. Do not send time-sensitive, action- oriented messages, such as transaction requests, via e-mail as it is our policy not to accept such items electronically. All e-mail sent to or from this address will be received or otherwise recorded by the Fisher Investments corporate e-mail system and is subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to, someone other than the recipient. The material contained in this email is confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. Please do not forward this e-mail to others. 2/9/2010 Page 1 of 1 Tina Hugg From: Tina Hugg Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:40 PM To: 'Joshua Hart' Subject: RE: Parking Lot project Dear Mr, Hart: Your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the El Corte de Madera Creek Parking/Staging Area and Trails project were received and will be provided to the Board. Your email address has also been added to the mailing list and we will keep you informed of future public meetings in connection with the project. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you. Sincerely, x Tina Hugg Open Space Planner thugs@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 From: Joshua Hart [mailto:velorution@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:33 AM To: Tina Hugg i Subject: Parking Lot project Hi Tina, Can you please confirm receipt of my comments in connection with the negative declaration on the skyline parking project? Has this been passed to the board? Can you please keep me informed and let me know when a decision will be made, as well as any meetings in connection with this? Thank you, Josh Hart i 2/9/2010 Page 1 of 3 Tina Hugg From: Joshua Hart [velorution@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 12:00 PM To: Tina Hugg Subject: Re: corte de madera parking Dear Tina, Please make sure the following comments are considered by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as they make their decision on the proposed parking lot project for the Corte de Madera Open Space. Thank you, Joshua Hart Midpeninsula Regional Open Space e District Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Re: Corte de Madera Parking Lot project Dear Midpeninsula Open Space District, My name is Joshua Hart. I am a resident of Menlo Park, and have just returned from the UK where I obtained a Masters degree in Tra nsport ans ort Planning from the Universit y t of the West f g y o England in Bristol. On Tuesday, my mother and I decided to hike in the Corte de Madera open space area near skyline, which was beautiful. However, we were dismayed to find out that there was no public transit from the peninsula to take us there, so were forced to drive. Given the rising concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we are trying to do all we can to reduce our carbon footprint, including driving less. However, on this occasion, there was simply no alternative means of transport to and from Skyline. We enjoyed our visit to Corte de Madera open space, particularly the two old growth redwood trees that still remain in the park. They are reminders of the vast old growth redwood forests that once covered these hills, and the past mistakes that human beings have made in the name of'progress.' At the end of our hike, we came upon a notice of a 'mitigated negative declaration' about a proposed parking lot construction project for 65 cars and 4 horse trailers that would mean the destruction of several native trees, including some mature varieties. Upon further questioning of your staff, it would seem the estimate for this project is roughly $231,000. I realize that you are tasked with balancing public access to these open space lands with the preservation of the natural ecosystems that inhabit these areas. Of course this balance is not always easy, and I respect that you have many different constituencies you must satisfy. However, the preservation of the natural environment has to come first in any decision that is made about the future stewardship of these lands. I believe that the proposed project will have a significant negative effect on the environment and urge you to rethink this project and how these funds might better be spent elsewhere. i In particular: 2/9/2010 Page 2 of 3 1) Adding additional (particularly free) parking will generate additional motor traffic, not just accommodate the existing demand. Donald Shoup, a planning professor from UCLA and an internationally recognized expert on parking, says that 'free parking is like a fertility drug for cars.' (1) 2) Generating more private motor vehicle traffic runs counter to good preservation policies. Additional car traffic will increase noise, air pollution, and danger to hikers, cyclists, animals, as well as other drivers. Additional car traffic will also significantly increase the carbon footprint of the open space areas that you manage. As you know, scientists have warned that if we continue emitting carbon dioxide at current levels, we put at risk the stability of our own civilization as well as the future health of our ecosystems. The region's coastal redwood trees are particularly vulnerable, as they depend on a very specific climate with regular fog intervals. More information about climate change and redwood habitat can be found here: http:llwww.savetheredwoods.org/protecting/climate change.shtml I was dismayed to find that the Open Space District appears to lack a climate change policy (at least one readily accessible on your website) I urge you to adopt a plan to cut emissions and encourage more sustainable ways of travel to your parks. 3) It is not effective mitigation to replace older trees with new saplings. As you know, older trees are critical habitat for a number of species. These cannot be 'replaced' with new trees. To sum up, I would urge you to reconsider this project. At a time of economic uncertainty, when parks are being shut down all over the state, and the threat of a climate crisis is drawing nearer, we need to ensure that we focus scarce resources on projects that will care for our open spaces, reduce carbon emissions, and improve public access for all levels of society. Your basic policy states: "The District strives to provide public access to its lands to everyone, regardless of place of residence,physical abilities, or economic status." This $231,000 could be used as start up funds for a regular shuttle service from Caltrain to parks along skyline, allowing access to the parks for those without access to a car. With the right marketing and promotion, this could be a well used service, improving access to these parks while providing people with new travel choices. Hundreds of thousands of bay area residents live without a car, and millions more get by with only one car to share amongst several adults. (2) These households are predominantly low income, people of colour, or simply dedicated to low impact lifestyles. When it comes to make a decision about this project, I would ask you to consider what the District is doing to facilitate access for these people, while reducing the emissions that are jeopardizing the future health of the ecosystems that inhabit the lands that you manage. At the very least, it would be good practice to charge drivers for the cost of the parking facilities that they use, rather than continuing to use general funds to subsidize these current unsustainable travel patterns. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have in connection with this project and how MROSD might develop a carbon reduction strategy. Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my comments. I Sincerely, Joshua Hart MSc 1 SHOUP D. 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: American Planning Association. O g g g g (2) http://transformca.org/resource/access-now 2/9/2010 Page 3uf] � � � � From: Tina Hugg «di org> To: Joshua Hart <velorution@u/ahoo.conn> Sent: Fri, November6, 2009 10:38:44 AM Subject: RE: cortedemaderaparking Dear Mr. Hart The cost estimate prepared for the original project design in 2005 was $231, 400. Please note that this is an � estimate. Should the project be approved, the District would undertake the projectwith cost efficiency anan � important concern. In addition, the District anticipates that funding for the projectvviUoomopartiaUyorvvhoUyfrom � grant funds, mothat the entire cost of the project will not come solely from District funds. Sincerely, x TlnaHug8 Open Space P(annor 0Udpeninsuia Regional Open Space District � . ]3ODi�te| [ircie LosAiLos CAq4O22 � � , � | | P: (650) 691'1I00 F�� (650) 891-0485 � From: Joshua Hart [maUUo: — Sent: Thursday, NovemberO5 200912:10PM To: Tina Hugg � Subject: cortedemaderaparking Dear Tina, Thank you for speaking with roe just now. l look forward to receiving your cost estimate for the � project, ao well mmwhere the funds will bc coming from. l will plan to submit zoy comments tomorrow. best wishes, Josh Bart Menlo Park � � 2/9/2UlO � Tina Hugg From: Bern Smith [bern_smith@ridgetrail.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:06 PM To: Ana Ruiz; Tina Hugg Subject: El Corte de Madera Staging area &trails MND Ana & Tina -- Rather than send a formal letter responding to your request for public comments regarding the MND, I'm sending this message to say that I agree with your conclusions regarding no significant (unmitigated) impacts, at least for those segments of the document that fall within my areas of expertise. I agree that in those respects the declaration accurately accounts for potential impacts that my be caused by trail or staging area construction, and potential impacts to habitat for California redlegged frogs. Going forward, I remain ready to work with you on Ridge Trail alignment and construction issues, including the 'perimeter trail, , staging area and the spur trails that will be necessary to link the Ridge Trail to the planned pedestrian crossing of Skyline Blvd. (and which will trigger a change in the dedicated Ridge Trail alignment) . Regards -- Bern Smith Bay Area Ridge Trail Council South Bay Trail Director 1007 General Kennedy #3 San Francisco 94129 415 561 2595 Cell 650 868 5467 bern—smith@ridgetrail.org Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Nov-12•__ 2:25PMi; Page 1 /3 STATE OF C T 7Ft)R1tIA--St1 iNF44.TRXN4Ffa1Z1AIIQ1 f ANE?ti0t7STNG AC, *I(-Y AaNW,12SCkJWAAZENECX3tl1 Cn xn DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 G1i.AND AVENUE P. O.BOX 23660 OAKLA.ND,CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510)622-5491 Ftexyourpawerl FAX ($10)286-5539 Be energy a dentl TTY 711 November 12, 20W SM035 077 SM-35-13.46 SCH#2009102028 Ms. Ana Risiz Midpeninsula Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 Dear Ms. Ruiz: EL CORTE DE MADE-RA CREED PARIINGISTAGING AREA AND TRAILS PROJECT-MITIGATED-NEGATIVE DECLARTION Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation(Department) in the environmental review process for the El Conte de Madera Creek Open Space project. The following comments are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND).As lead agency, the Midpeninsula Open Space District(MOSD) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any peedded improvementss to state highways.The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling,implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should,be folly discussed for all.proposed mitigation measures. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or use permit. An encroachment permit is required for work in the.;state right of way(ROW), and the Department will not issue a permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the MOSD work with the Department to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the environmental review process, and in any case prior to submittal of a permit application.Further comments will'be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Project Graphics 1. Please provide a.regional site map that clearly shows the project in relation to state route (SR) 35. 2. please provide a full set of plans including landscaping plans. 3. Any proposed improvements within the state ROW geed to be clearly identified. 4. Ingress and egress for all project components in gelation to SR 35 should be clearly identified. 5. Map must be drawn to scale,with a north arrow, and the state ROW must be shown for the whole of the project limits. 6. A proposed plan showing the actual highway geometry within at least 500 feet of the proposed access in both directions shall be provided. "Cal"ns tonjYmver moblltry ac%ce California" + II Sens By: CALTRANS TRANSPGA7ATI0 f WING; 510 286 5560; Nov-12-09 2:25PM; Page 2/3 Ms. Ana Ruiz November 12, 2009 Page 2 ess Project A c c 1. Access to SR 35 shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Private and Commercial Driveway Approach for Rural Areas with Unimproved Frontage on Conventional State Highways issued by the Department's Permits Office. 2. Please provide and discuss the site's entrance traffic conditions along SR 35. At the egress wiU there be an acceleration lane taper for southbound(SB) SR 35?From the egress point what is the sight distance of SB traffic when horse trailers are entering the project site? 3. Please check the directional bearing of Figures 5 and 6 for accuracy. 4. As noted in our March 9,2006 letter(attached), corner sight distance shall be 495 feet measured from the stopped egress vehicle at project access to the approach vehicle in both directions of SR 35, If rmtrictiye conditions exist,the minimum corner sight distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance of 360 feet at 45 miles per hour(mph).Thcse requirements are based on the posted speed limit of 45 mph on SR 35, 5. The access gate shall be located a winirnurn of 20 feet from the edge of traveled way. Plans should show the distance between the access gate and the edge of the traveled way. 6. Every effort should.be made to ensure that the proposed entrance sign is located outside of the state ROW.If the entrance sign,must be posted within state ROW,the signposts shall be of breakaway type and located 20 feet from the nearest edge of the traveled way. maintenance Services 1. In the landscaping plan, please provide the species names of the trees to be removed from the state ROW. 2. The.Department's replacement ratio for trees is generally 5:1;that is 5 fifteen gallon trees for each one removed,not a 1:1 ratio as proposed in the MND. 3. The trees proposed to be removed are significant in size at 52",62",and 74"in diameters and they are located on a designated scenic highway.For these reasons,the replacement ratio can be higher. 4. The applicantp 3 Sr 1�will need to maintain the ro'ect s egress and ingress segments of the driveways that are within the state ROW, A maintenance agreement between the Department and the lead agency will need to be executed. Cultural Resources State ROW adjacent to the project location has been previously surveyed and is sensitive for prehistoric archaeological finds. Should ground-disturbing activities take place as part of this project within state ROW and there is an inadvertent burial.discovery, in compliance with CEQA,PRC 5024.5 and 5097 and Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference(SER) Chapter 2 (at http://ser.dot.ca.gov), all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease. The Department's Cultural Resource Studies Office,District 4, shall be immediately contacted at (510)286-5618. A staff archaeologist will evaluate the finds within one business day after contact- Encroachment Permit Work that encroaches onto the state ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department_To apply, a completed-encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating state ROW must be submitted to: Office of Permits, California SNOT,District 4,P.O. Box 23660,Oakland, CA 94623-0660, "CaWatcr imprvves mobtfiry aeposs Caltfarnki Sent"' By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO _ANNIN©; 510 288 5 J •' 58o; Nov-1, 2:28PM; Page 3/3 Ms.Ana Ruiz November 12,2009 ' Page 3 Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the,d,onstruction plans during the encroachment permit process See the•website link below for more information. http://www.dot.ca�gov/hq/traff,Dps/devolopscrv/permits/ Please feel free to call or.email Sandra Finegan of my staff at(Sl 0)622-1644 or san-dra frnmn r,,dot.ca.gov with any questions.regarding this letter. Sincerely, P- t.Ga�h.L, • LISA CAR-BONI District Branch Chief Local Development--Intergoverrunental Review c: State Clearinghouse Attachment: Letter.dated March 9, 2006 I I "Caltraw hsprom Nwhilltyocross Calrfornia" (" 41 1 III Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-10-06 Meeting 10-05 February 10, 2010 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Field Enforcement Activity Report for Calendar Year 2009 and Ten-Year Field Activity Summary. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Accept the Calendar Year 2009 Miscellaneous Enforcement Activity Summary and the Ten-Year Field Activity Summary. SUMMARY The total violations on District property in CY2009 increased 9.0% over CY2008. Parking and Parking After Hours violations accounted for 32.4% of the total violations in the past year, with Rancho San Antonio experiencing the greatest number of parking violations of any District preserve. Total Bicycle violations increased 24.5% over the previous year, while hiker/runner and equestrian violations showed a modest decline. Bicycle accidents were at a I 0-year high. Total dog-related violations were also at an all time high, increasing 14.8% over CY2008. Incidents of vandalism increased slightly over CY2008, however the number of incidents (34) is far below the all time high of 109 that occurred in CY2000. DISCUSSION Since April 1995, staff has given the Board written monthly reports on emergency incidents and enforcement activities on District land. At the end of each year, the Board receives a summary for that year as well as a comparison with previous years. Two summaries are presented for Board review in this report: the CY2009 Miscellaneous Enforcement Activity Summary (Appendix A), and the Ten-Year Field Activity Summary (Appendix B), with highlights represented in graph form (Appendices C and D). The Miscellaneous Enforcement Activity Summary (Appendix A) lists, in chronological order for the past year, contacts made or reports taken by staff of potentially serious, violent, or other criminal activity on or near District land. This is not a comprehensive list of incidents but R-10-06 Page 2 reflects incidents of special interest or concern. Events which posed special concern for ranger safety or were unusual in nature are included. The Ten-Year Field Activity Summary includes violations of District Land Use Regulations, emergency responses, criminal activity, and mutual aid incidents. Only contacts that resulted in some form of written record, such as a District incident report, written warning, citation, log notation, or mutual aid assistance report have been included in these summaries. General assistance to preserve visitors, informational contacts, and verbal warnings has not been included. Trends and Issues The total number of noted violations of District ordinances was 1,721, an increase from the 2008 total of 1,579. Parking and Parking After-Hours violations constituted 558 instances of the recorded District violations. Rancho San Antonio continues to be the area which experiences the most parking violations. When parking violations are removed, the number of noted violations of District Ordinances increased from 1,031 in 2008 to 1,163 in 2009. Recorded bicycle violations increased from 290 in 2008 to 361 in 2009. All categories of bicycle violations increased, as shown on the chart below. The number of Closed Area violations tends to vary according to the weather, since trails are not generally closed during dry periods. The third year of drought may have contributed to the increase in this category. 2000 12001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 A. VIOLATIONS I.Bike-closed area 99 62 60 63 89 58 94 89 52 89 2.Bike-speed 64 82 101 93 146 113 92 89 80 94 3.Bike-helmet 128 159 135 152 187 124 157 166 146 155 4.Bike-night riding 3 39 5 25 13 24 18 12 12 23 Total Bicycle 294 342 301 333 435 319 361 356 290 361 Violations The number of bicycle accidents continued the trend of increases which started in 2006. The 40 accidents experienced in 2009 represent a I 0-year high. Other user groups experienced small decreases. Appendix D provides graphical information on accident trends for different user groups. In 2009, there were 34 incidents of vandalism, which is slightly higher than the 31 recorded in 2008. The highest number of incidents was 109, which was recorded in 2000. The total varies by year and no specific pattern has been identified for this problem. Staff continues to monitor the vandalism problem, efficiently repair or replace vandalized property and install more vandal resistant infrastructure such as metal signs with graffiti resistant coating. Overall the number of violations of District ordinances has continued on a generally upward trend. See Appendix C for a graphical representation of the information. During the last 10 years the number of users, the number of acres managed by the District, and the number of ranger R-10-06 Page 3 positions has also increased. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated from the acceptance of this information. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided by the Brown Act, No further notice is required, CEQA COMPLIANCE This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS Staff will continue to actively enforce District regulations, encourage all users to act in a manner which provides for the protection of the natural resources, and allow for the safe and enjoyable use of the preserves by all visitors. Attachment(s) 1. Appendix A - 2009 Miscellaneous Enforcement Activities 2. Appendix B - Field Activity Summary 3. Appendix C - District Enforcement Activities —Ten Year Summary 4. Appendix D - Accidents by User 'hype Prepared by: Gordon C. Baillie, Management Analyst Leslie Wright, Administrative Assistant Contact Person: David Sanguinetti, Operations Manager Page 4 2009 Miscellaneous Enforcement Activities APPENDIX A KEY: CAL FIRE CA Dept. Forestry CHP CA Highway Patrol F&G CA Fish & Game CAMP Campaign Against Marijuana Production SMSO San Mateo Sheriffs Office SCSO Santa Clara Sheriffs Office Nature of Incident January 14 A District Ranger was meeting with a Santa Clara County Park Ranger when shots were heard in the area of the Stevens Creek County Park Dam. One of the shots flew over both rangers' heads. The rangers left the area and waited for Sheriff Deputies to respond. Another District Ranger was able to obtain the suspect's license plate number. The vehicle was gone by the time the deputies arrived. The suspect was contacted after a check of the vehicle's registration and confessed to shooting a weapon in the park. 15 A hiker was walking towards Deer Hollow Farm from the County Park restroom at Rancho San Antonio OSP, when a bicyclist came at her at a high rate of speed causing her to jump out of the way to avoid being hit. There were two other reports of similar incidents in the same area. February 5 While on foot patrol on the Dennis Martin Trail in Thornewood OSP, a ranger observed an off- leash dog in Shilling Lake while the owner was standing by, smoking. Two other suspects were nearby. Backup fill units were called because of the dog's aggressive behavior and the lack of cooperation by the owner. The owner admitted lie knew his dog was required to be on-leash. Then the owner allowed the dog to lunge twice at the ranger. The ranger pulled out, but did not extend, his baton. The owner reacted by threatening the ranger with physical violence if he touched his dog. The dog owner was cited for"Interfering with a Peace Officer in the Performance of their Duties", while the other two suspects received written warnings. Proper notifications were made to the Operations Manager for the deployment of defensive equipment by a District Ranger. 7 A vehicle was found parked off of Page Mill Road, and two subjects were contacted inside Monte Bello OSP. The individuals told the ranger they were just out hiking. Suspicious, the ranger walked away along the fire break and watched both subjects, who eventually went into the brush and retrieved two rifles. The ranger recontacted the individuals and confiscated their rifles and a pocket knife. Both subjects were cited for firearms prohibited. SMSO and SCSO deputies responded. It was determined that the guns had not been fired, and the guns were returned to the subjects upon their release. 24 District rangers were called to assist with capturing an Emu that had escaped from a residence in the Portola Heights Area, near Long Ridge OSP. The Emu was located and captured in the reserve. The owner was issued a written warning for "other petsprohibited." 26 Two construction workers heard a woman calling for help in Monte Bello OSP. Her vehicle had become stuck in the mud two days earlier just off of Monte Bello Road. She advised that she had a friend's dog, that was no longer with her, and she had spent two days out in the rain looking for the dog. After Palo Alto Fire evaluated her, she and her vehicle were taken to the dog owner's residence. She was arrested for grand theft of the dog by SCSO. The resident/owner of the dog was taken by rangers to the trail, where the dog was safely located and returned. Page 5 Nature of Incident March 2 District personnel observed a suspicious, unoccupied vehicle, parked off Highway 35 adjacent to Windy Hill OSP. The next day staff took GPS coordinates and photographed a suspected illegal trail east of the turnout leading into a clearing near a known marijuana garden site. A report was sent to SMSO. 25 A suspect was seen burglarizing a car at the Rancho San Antonio County Park Equestrian Parking Lot by rangers who were on surveillance of an area where two burglaries had been committed in the previous two weeks. SCSO Deputies were called, but did not arrive in time to apprehend the suspect. 27 A ranger observed several vehicles parked"After Hours" in the Fremont Older OSP Parking Lot. Individuals were observed walking up to an unoccupied home near located near-the parking lot. SCSO Deputies were called and determined that a"house party" was occurring involving approximately 25 juveniles, one of who was arrested for narcotics and marijuana possession. Parents were called to retrieve their childeren. April 4 While on patrol on the Ranch Springs Trail in Long Ridge OSP, District rangers found black irrigation tubing. The tubing was not connected, but was 10 feet from a water source. The rangers followed the tubing for 400 feet. For officer safety, it was decided not to continue with the search. The type of tubing they discovered is commonly used to irrigate marijuana plantations. 5 Santa Clara County Fire extinguished a fire off Canon Way in El Sereno OSP. Rangers arrived as two subjects associated with the fire were observed walking down the road. The subjects admitted association with the fire, and told rangers that they were homeless. Both subjects provided identification. One of the subjects had a felony arrest warrant. A SCSO deputy was requested, and transported the subject to 'ail. The other subject was released. 10 A District ranger cited and released the driver of a vehicle in Bear Creek Redwoods OSP for a "Vehicle Prohibited" violation. The passenger of the vehicle was arrested by a SCSO Deputy for an outstanding marijuana possession violation. 16 A District ranger attempted to stop a bicyclist without a helmet at Rancho San Antonio OSP. The subject initially stopped, but refused to show identification and continued riding toward the County Parking Lot. The subject was repeatedly re-contacted by the ranger, but continued to ride toward the parking lot. A SCSO deputy was requested and responded. The subject decided to cooperate when contacted by the deputy. After producing his identification, the subject was cited for "Resisting/Delaying a Peace Officer" and released. May 13 At Fremont Older OSP a bicyclist collided with an equestrian. The bicyclist and equestrian both fell to the ground. The bicyclist immediately jumped up and left the accident scene without asking or checking to see if the horse and rider had been injured. The equestrian walked her horse back to the stables and sought medical attention for a injury to her knee. 14 At Pulgas Ridge OSP an individual was reported to be begging for money along the trail coming from the parking lot. Rangers responded and determined the person was on leave from the adjacent mental hospital. Hospital staff was contacted and the subject was returned to the hospital. Page 6 Nature of Incident 16 An individual was observed walking along Hwy. 35 (Skyline Boulevard) with a machete hanging from his waist. He was last seen entering El Corte de Madera OSP from the roadway. Further investigation of the area turned up a homemade cart, several totes, tarps, tools, rope. It was also discovered that a dirt area had been leveled, and a camouflaged net had to been erected to hide the area. The totes were found to contain clothing and tools. 18 A driver crashed on the private property section of Mt. Umunhum Road, at Sierra Azul OSP. The suspect was transported to the hospital where he was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). The suspect stated that he had found the gate open and had driven up to see the block building. The District's Santa Clara County Contract Deputy stated the gate was secure when he checked it 45 minutes prior to the accident. June 6 In Monte Bello, Los Trancos, and Skyline Ridge OSPs, a running group known as the Flash House Harriers were discovered holding a non-permitted organized run. Two of the runners were contacted by District Rangers and told to stop, which they initially ignored. Once stopped, one participant stated that she "did not know rangers could demand compliance, and she was going to call the police and her lawyer." Alcohol was detected, and the runner admitted that she had been drinking. Both subjects admitted being part of the running group. They were cited for participating in a non-permitted event. In addition they were given verbal warnings for resisting arrest. 9 A neighbor noticed that his waterlines had been tapped and reported a marijuana cultivation site in the Soda Springs area of Sierra Azul OSP. SCSO Deputies responded and eradicated the site, which comprised approximately 3,000 plants. No suspects were arrested. 14 At Russian Ridge OSP four individuals were contacted for possessing a bow and arrows. In addition, they had an off-leash dog. They were cited for dog prohibited, off-leash dog, and given a Written Warning for "Prohibited Weapons". 30 District Staff noticed a vehicle parked along Highway 35, adjacent to Coal Creek OSP. The vehicle was suspected of being associated with a possible marijuana site in the preserve. The SMSO Drug Task Force was notified. A deputy responded to check the area. He saw something moving in the area of the grow site and called for backup. Three more officers and a K-9 unit arrived and found three grow areas, with approximately 150 plants in each location. July 2 A marijuana garden was discovered in the Bald Mountain Area of Sierra Azul OSP. The SCSO Marijuana Eradication Team arrested one suspect, while another fled. Approximately 6,100 marijuana plants were confiscated and destroyed. 9 California State Park rangers had been called out to investigate a possible methamphetamine laboratory on the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail in Castle Rock State Park. They found four 6-gallon containers of fertilizer at the Achistaca Trailhead and requested assistance from District rangers to help with transport of the containers. 16 An extensive multi-day search was conducted for a missing person in El Corte de Madera OSP. District rangers initiated the search, and then turned over command to the SMSO Search and Rescue Team. A number of different agencies and over 100 individual search participants were involved each day. After four days, the search was called off with the individual still missing. 31 A marijuana eradication operation was conducted near Indian Creek Trail in Monte Bello OSP. There were two primary grow sites that yielded 21,000 plants, which were eradicated. Page 8 Nature of Incident 25 A wildland fire burned a total of 500 acres in the Loma Prieta Area of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Of the total area burned, approximately 300 acres were in Sierra Azul OSP. CAL FIRE requested assistance from other agencies for fire suppression. The effort involved ground crews, bulldozers, and engines. Fixed wing aircraft and helicopters had difficulty working the incident due to high winds. November 17 A mentally distressed individual was confronting visitors verbally and physically on the PG&E trail in Rancho San Antonio OSP. SCSO deputies and District rangers responded, and took the individual into custody. 25 Visitors at El Sereno OSP reported hearing gunshots and feeling bullets passing by them. The shots appeared to originate from private property adjacent to the preserve. The preserve was closed while SCSO deputies investigated. December, 13 A District ranger was contacting some visitors at St. Joseph's Hill OSP when a runner, approached aggressively using profanity and taunting the ranger. The runner was repeatedly told to leave, and finally complied. It is suspected that District rangers had made an enforcement contact of this individual a few months earlier. 27 While hiking off-trail in El Corte de Madera OSP, an individual discovered human remains. SMSO staff and the San Mateo County coroner responded to the site with District staff and removed the remains. The remains have since been confirmed as those of the hiker who went missing on July 161". 31 District rangers were investigating suspects associated with closed area violations at the former Almaden Ai r Force Station in Sierra Azul OSP. The rangers discovered an associated vehicle that had current registration tags on it, but a registration check revealed that the vehicle had an expired registration. The suspect admitted stealing the tags off of another vehicle. SCSO deputies were called. The suspect was cited, the vehicle was impounded. Page 7 Nature of Incident Au st 10 An 8-year-old boy became separated from an organized group which was hiking without a permit, in the lower Purisima Creek/Walker Gulch area of Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP. District staff conducted a 20 minute search in the Walker Gulch area locating the boy, who was unharmed except for some minor scratches. 11 A bicyclist without a helmet refused to yield for a District Ranger at El Sereno OSP. The suspect was later located and stopped in Los Gatos, where it was determined he had received citations in the past for"No Helmet". He was cited for"Resist, Obstruct, Delay Peace Officer," and for"No Helmet." 14 At 1:45 AM in the area of the Big Dipper Ranch driveway, District rangers observed suspicious headlights and spotlights shining inside the Skyline Ridge OSP. F&G was notified of possible illegal night hunting on District Land, but the notification did not reach the warden until the following morning. 21 SCSO deputies raided a marijuana garden in Sierra Azul OSP. Two suspects fled when deputies entered the garden where 3,012 plants were located and removed. 22 Suspected hunters in several vehicles, people on foot, dogs, and gunfire were reported by neighbors. The illegal activity occurred along the Lobitos Creek, Blue Brush Canyon, and Elkus property complex, also known as the future Skyline to the Sea route. District rangers were not able to contact or identify the violators. September 6 At Fremont Older OSP, a trail conflict occurred between a hiker and an equestrian. The equestrian stopped after passing a hiker and informed her that she is supposed to stop for horses. The hiker responded that she did not know that to be a rule. The equestrian then turned around and walked the horse up to the hiker and raised her riding crop in an aggressive manner. The hiker felt threatened and thought she was going to be pushed off the trail. The equestrian could not be found. District rangers contacted the staff at Garrod Stables regarding the event. 26 District staff copied radio traffic on the Palo Alto Fire frequency of a fire on Page Mill Road near Los Trancos OSP. District rangers were first on scene. A vehicle was fully involved and the fire had spread to the grassland in the preserve. Palo Alto Fire Department, Palo Alto Rangers, Santa Clara County Fire, and Cal Fire units responded. The grassland part of the fire burned directly adjacent to the vehicle and was stopped by the established fire break. However, an additional hot spot ignition point started on the other side of the fire break. The additional fire was quickly contained. October 9 On the Anniversary Trail in Windy Hill OSP two visitors were contacted with a dog off-leash. The dog's owner refused to identify herself and attempted to walk away. After SMSO was requested, she agreed to identify herself. The subject was very vocal in her opposition to the District's leash law. She was cited and released. 1 1 While running radar at St. Joseph's Hill OSP, a District ranger attempted to stop a bicyclist for a trail speed violation. The subject eluded the ranger by going down another trail. The ranger made a second attempt to stop the cyclist, but the subject again eluded the ranger. At the third attempt, the ranger blocked the trail, making it very clear that the bicyclist needed to stop, but the subject mana ed to squeeze past the ranger and exited the preserve. R-10-06 Appendix B TEN YEAR FIELD ACTIVITY SUMMARY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 A.VIOLATIONS LBike-closed area 99 62 60 63 89 58 94 89 52 89 2.Bike-s eed 64 82 101 93 146 113 92 89 80 94 3.Bike-helmet 128 159 135 152 187 124 157 166 146 155 4.Bike-night riding 3 39 51 25 13 24 18 121 12 23 S.Bike-Unsafe Operation 3 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 6.Do s-prohibited 34 40 52 72 72 55 61 94 117 119 7.Do s-off leash 82 111 129 168 188 131 199 228 174 215 8.01T road vehicle 16 27 18 34 28 21 17 8 19 15 9.Closed area 81 17 31 531 66 591 77 60 89 72 1 O.After hours 80 76 106 183 137 197 147 188 185 231 1 I.Fishing 4 2 6 10 10 12 4 5 0 2 12.Vandalism 109 57 58 62 44 83 53 52 31 34 B.Parking 192 505 267 233 196 219 262 225 242 237 14.Parking after hrs. 224 262 366 414 392 267 320 380 306 321 15.Dum /litter 131 6 4 151 18 141 20 261 5 14 16.Cam fires 4 5 1 4 3 6 7 6 11 5 17.Catnping 9 2 1 8 16 22 11 6 8 4 18.Wea on contact 2 6 1 24 13 6 14 6 10 8 19.Wea on report 7 8 4 8 2 2 3 1 8 0 20.Wea on-Evidence of 6 2 3 4 3 2 3 8 3 21.Other 521 53 114 1051 103 1841 176 1441 85 79 Total 1,133 1,526 1,464 1,733 1,727 1.600 1,734 1,788 1,579 1,721 B.ACCIDENTS/FIRE 1.Bicycle 28 37 31 28 29 19 20 29 30 40 2.E uestrian 2 3 7 7 3 3 2 3 4 1 3.Hiking/Running 8 22 10 16 12 14 11 20 26 22 4.Other first aid 81 13 12 101 9 161 17 13 13 22 5.Search&rescue 121 10 12 7 10 10 13 91 8 9 6.Vehicle 6 12 6 7 10 8 5 8 1 11 7.Helico ter landings 7 9 10 6 7 4 1 5 4 3 8.Fire(acres) 0 6(58) 6 1 5 3 6 7 5 7 Total 71 112 94 82 85 77 75 94 91 115 C.ENFORCEMENT 1.Citations 4101 845 761 882 955 727 1028 10721 506 507 2.Parking Citations 470 467 3.Written warnings 530 570 518 640 629 501 483 584 472 637 4.Arrests 5 7 3 2 1 8 3 1 7 1 5.Police assistance 11 27 37 38 30 18 18 13 25 29 Total 956 1,449 1,326 1.562 1,615 1,2541 1.532 1,670 19480 1,641 D.CRIMES LAuto burglaries 5 21 14 5 34 31 14 81 23 4 2.False information 3 4 1 3 13 6 6 2 5 2 3.Resisting Peace Officer 4 9 5 18 7 4 6 9 7 9 4.Assault 3 2 2 01 0 0 2 3 3 1 5.Poaching 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 6.Possession/Cultivation-Marij 31 9 10 14 9 171 21 15 23 14 7.Minor in possession of Alcohi 5 12 3 0 11 4 9 81 25 0 8.Other 10 12 18 16 42 77 22 11 21 16 Total 33 70 53 57 116 139 82 57 107 47 E.MUTUAL AID 1.Accidents 31 28 38 38 3 31 38 48 51 48 2.Enforcement 261 12 14 11 20 141 8 5 16 12 3.Fire(acres) 7 8 4 2 8 3 5 41 4 4 4.Helico ter landings 4 9 11 7 1 9 2 2 10 5 5.Other 2 3 3 8 2 5 3 8 3 2 Total 70 60 701 661 34 62 56 67 84 71 R-10-06 Appendix C District Enforcement Activities Ten Year History 2000 1800 1600 --- - 1400 -- 1200 -- --- m 1000 ---- . . \ / ft - -- - O00 so \ / 600 -- - .......... ®.. X � 400 200 0 — — — - — -- ---- --—--—-----—-----—--—--—--— 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 - - Bicycle Violations "°X' -Written Warnings + Citations—Total Violations —--— Vandalism j R-10-06 Appendix D Accidents By User Type 40 37 40 35 31 --- __ ------ - 28 30 30- ' - -- -�9-------- c 25 -- - 19 -20- Q 20 0 6 15 — 10- 5- 0- -_ 2000 2001 Bicycle 2002 2003 2004 Hiking/Running - _ 2005 2006 63 Equestrian Year 2007 2008 2009 Midpeninsula Regional ' Open Space District To: Board of Directors From: Stephen E. Abbors Date. February 5, 2O10 i Re: FYIs ' Midpeninsula Regional Memorandum Open Space District r � To: MROSD Board of Directors Through: Steve Abhors, General Manager From: Kirk Lenington, Meredith Manning Date: February 5, 2010 Re: Update on Mt Umunhum Remediation and Restoration Project Remediation and restoration of the former Almaden Air Force Station located atop Mt. Umunhum within the District's Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve promises to be a very large, fast moving, and exciting project for the District in the upcoming years. As you are aware, significant progress has already been made in securing funding for this project and in initiating work with our partners,the US Army Corps of Engineers(Corps), on this project. In order to keep the Board informed of the progress on this project, staff will be preparing and submitting regular informational reports with updates on major project tasks and accomplishments. This first report is organized by major project task. Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) The Corps recently submitted the Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report for Site AOI 70, which is a catchment basin for two large fuel storage tanks that supplied fuel for the power generator building of the base. During the course of conducting investigations at the site, residual contamination was discovered within the soils at this location, thus requiring remediation. This report describes the proposed remedial strategy(excavation of the contaminated soils and treatment on site,then redepositing within the catchment basin area)and proposed cleanup levels. This report has been reviewed and approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in their capacity as the oversight agency for cleanup actions at the site. Cleanup actions at Site AOI 70 are expected to be initiated by the Corps within the first quarter of this year. Remediation and Restoration This phase of the project entails all aspects of the cleanup and demolition of the former base. This phase is distinguished from the FUDS portion of the work because activities are not limited by the scope and funding restrictions that govern the FUDS program. A majority of the work to be completed will be funded by the Federal appropriation awarded to the project in December, 2009. A kickoff meeting to discuss the proposed scope of work to be accomplished with the available $3.2M was held on January 8, 2010 with representatives from the Corps in attendance. The recruitment for the District Project Manager was completed at the end of January, 2010, and an offer of employment has been extended and accepted by the top candidate. Her first day at work will be on March 1, 2010, The District's consultant, Northgate Environmental, Inc, and their subcontractors have begun investigations and studies in support of the District's site planning activities. Contaminant investigations are focusing on the radar tower(monolith) and the vehicle maintenance buildings in order to provide staff with feasibility and cost estimates for potential reuse of these buildings and/or demolition. ,Site Planning Staff held the site planning projectkick-off meeting ouJanuary 29« and will continue to meet on u bi- monthly basis. The Site Planning Team is represented by Planning, who is taking the lead, GlS pvngrxnn staff, Public Affairs, and Operations from the Foothills Field Office. Roles and ncoponmbi|hieswere assigned k`the projecttemn, including assignments for the next meeting, including preparing do{ailed project schedules. The team will bc scheduling site tours with the Sierra&zuKBeur Creek Redwoods /\d Tfoo Committee of the mountain peaks that surround the Sun Francisco Bay, including Mt. Tunmn|puis, Mt. Diablo, and Mt. Hamilton,to assess the infrastructure and operating needs associated with each site, and interview � representatives froxn each area to determine lessons 1ounocd in developing and managing these sites. � � � � ' Midpeninsula Regional r ' I Open Space District r i To: Board of Directors From: Stephen E. Abbors Date: February 10, 2010 Re: Late FYIs I Interoffice Memorandum February 8, 2010 To: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager From: David Sanguinetti, Operations Manager Prepared by: Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst—Operatio Subject: Monthly Field Activity Summary—December, 2009 DISTRICT VIOLATIONS CITES TOTALS OTHER CRIMES CITES TOTALS Bicycles Resisting peace officer 0 1 Closed Area _ 4 11 Speed I 1 Helmet 8 14 Night Riding 1 2 ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS Dogs Bicycle accident 1 Prohibited area 2 8 Equestrian accident p Off-leash 6 8 Hiking/Running accident 0 Vehicles prohibited — p ed 0 1 Other first aid __ _ 0 Closed area 6 11 Search& Rescue 0 After hours 1 12 Vehicle accident 0 Fishing 0 0 LZ air evacuation 0 Vandalism 0 0 Fire 0 Parking 15 18 ENFORCEMENT Parking after hours 34 39 "Subject" citations %/// 31 Disabled parking 2 2 Parking citations �,, 49 Dumping/Litter 0 0 Written warnings 47 Campfires 0 0 Arrests 0 Weapons Police assistance 2 Actual contact 0 0 Evidence of 0 0 MUTUAL AID Other: Accident 5 Smoking 2 2 Law Enforcement %/� I Fire(Acres) 1 Fire (Vehicle) 0 LZ's for offsite 0 Occurrences of Special Interest Date: 13 A ranger patrolling the Razorback Trail in Windy Hill OSP noticed nine"eyebrows" (riding on the banks of the trail) that had been created by bicycle use on a trail that is closed to bicycles. This is the first known evidence of"eyebrow" activity associated with a trail closed to bicycles. 13 A runner approached a ranger who was on foot making a contact at St. Joseph's Hill OSP. The runner used profanity and taunted the ranger while approaching aggressively. He was repeatedly told to leave, and finally complied. Research after the incident discovered two other rangers had a previous enforcement contact with the same individual previous to this encounter. 19 A ranger made contact with two juveniles observed sleeping in a car on Mt. Umunhum Road at l Sierra Azul OSP. The passenger appeared to be intoxicated and admitted to consuming alcohol the previous night. He had a valid provisional driver's license. A Sherriff s Deputy was requested who released the driver with a warning and transported him to his home. 27 While hiking off-trail in El Corte de Madera OSP, an individual discovered human remains. San Mateo County Sheriff Staff and the County Coroner responded to the site with District personnel and removed the remains. Identification of the remains is pending a coroner's investigation, which has since been confirmed as the missing individual from the 4 day search in the summer of 2009. 31 Rangers were investigating suspects associated with closed area violations at the former Almaden Air Force Station in Sierra Azul OSP. The rangers discovered an associated vehicle that had current registration tags on it, however when the vehicle was run, it came back with expired registration. The suspect admitted to stealing the tags off of another vehicle. Sheriff's deputies were requested who cited the suspect and impounded the vehicle. December Vandalism 21 On Mt. Umunhum Road at Sierra Azul OSP signs were stolen: No Smoking, No Fire, and No Parking 'h hour after Sunset. One post was pulled out. I i O:\Enforcement Activity Reports\2009 Monthly Summaries\December 2009-Monthly Enforcement Summary.doc