The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20200422 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-09, _ MIOPENlNSIJLA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, April 22, 2020 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting at 7:OOPM* AGENDA Meeting 20-09 Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 and the March 16, 2020 Order of the Health Officer of Santa Clara County directing all individuals living in the County to shelter at their place of residence, the Governor has allowed local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body or state body to avoid public gatherings, and has suspended all contrary provisions of the Brown Act. THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY 1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/84444840091 or listen to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 844 4484 0091). 2. Members of the public may provide written comments by submitting a public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public-comment • Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time the board president calls for public comments. • Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is closed. • All comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern speaker comments at the board of directors meeting. • Electronic comments on agenda may only be submitted via the public comment form. Comments via text or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc) will not be accepted. Any comments received after the deadline, will be provided to the Board after the meeting. 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL 1. Select a design alternative for the La Honda Creek White Barn and Sierra Azul Beatty House (R- 20-39) Staff Contact: Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering & Construction Department General Manager's Recommendations: 1. Select a design alternative for the following structures: a. La Honda Creek White Barn and b. Sierra Azul Beatty House. 2. Direct the General Manager to return to the Board of Directors with a recommended award of contract to develop construction documents for the Board -selected design alternatives. ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the agenda is for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. Individuals are limited to one comment during this section. ADOPTION OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. 1. Approve April 6 and April 8, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract for Design Revisions and Construction Administration of the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-40) Staff Contact: Scott Reeves, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction Department General Manager's Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with PGA Design, Inc., for design revisions and construction administration of the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $174,866. 2. Authorize an approximate 15% contingency of $26,250 for additional unanticipated project support through end of construction and project closeout, for a total contract amount not -to - exceed $201,116. BOARD BUSINESS Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Written public comments will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting and posted on the District's website at www.openspace.org. All written comments submitted in accordance with the guidance posted on the District's website will be read into the record. 4. Proposed purchase of the POST Gordon Ridge Property as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve, located at 811 La Honda Road, San Gregorio in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 081-040-010, 081-022-010, and 081-022-020). (R-20-41) Rev. 1/3/20 Staff Contact: Allen Ishibashi, Sr. Real Property Agent, Elish Ryan, Planner III General Manager's Recommendations: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the POST Gordon Ridge Property and amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget accordingly. 3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, as set out in the staff report. 4. Withhold dedication of the property as public open space at this time. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS — Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board. Committee Reports Staff Reports Director Reports ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT — CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, Santa Clara County APN: 170-04-051 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Diane New, Santa Clara County and Chris Jordan, City of Los Altos Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District's Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA Rev. 1/3/20 1, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on April 16, 2020, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District's web site at http://www.openspace.org. %�eedtmrdt Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Rev. 1/3/20 MI D 'LMJIN1 SU LA R F ii 1 0 N .x I OPEN SPACE I Midpeninsula Regional I Open Space District R-20-39 Meeting 20-09 April 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Select a design alternative for the La Honda Creek White Barn and Sierra Azul Beatty House GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Select a design alternative for the following structures: a. La Honda Creek White Barn and b. Sierra Azul Beatty House. 2. Direct the General Manager to return to the Board of Directors with a recommended award of contract to develop construction documents for the Board -selected design alternatives. SUMMARY The original purpose of the Structure Stabilization at Multiple Preserves Project (Project) was to assess and stabilize three District owned structures: The La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty House (referenced as the Beatty Home in the attached Basis of Design document). On May 15, 2019, the Board of Directors (Board) authorized the General Manager to enter into a contract with ZFA Structural Engineers (ZFA) to assess and analyze various treatment alternatives for these three structures (R-19-63) and return with the findings for Board selection of the treatment alternatives. ZFA's condition assessment results, design alternatives analysis, and associated costs are outlined in the Basis of Design (BOD) reports (Attachment 1). Once the Board reviews and selects a design alternative for each structure, staff will proceed with design development and permitting and will return to the Board with a recommended award of contract to develop construction documents. On April 8, 2020, the Board approved design alternative #4 for the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin (R-20-35). On April 22, the Board will approve the design alternatives for the La Honda Creek White Barn and Sierra Azul Beatty House. DISCUSSION The original purpose of the Structure Stabilization at Multiple Preserves project was to assess and stabilize three District -owned structures: La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty House. On April 24, 2019 and May 15, 2019, the Board authorized a two-phase project delivery approach and approved the Phase I scope (R-19-63): • Phase I: structure assessment, basis of design report, and design alternative analysis (recently completed); return with findings for Board selection of the alternatives. • Phase II: design development and implementation of the Board selected alternatives. Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-39 Page 2 The Board authorized entering into a contract with ZFA for Phase I work at the May 15, 2019 meeting and directed staff to return to the Board at the completion of Phase I to present the findings and for Board selection of a design alternative for each structure. Z1 A has completed their assessment and developed the BOD report for each structure. On April 8, 2020, the Board approved design alternative #4 for the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin (R-20-35). At the April 22, 2020 Board meeting, the Board will receive the reports and provide direction for the La Honda Creek White Barn and Sierra Azul Beatty House. Design Alternatives To complete their task, ZFA reviewed existing information for each structure, conducted inspections, performed non-destructive tests, researched governing agency requirements to analyze four design alternatives, and estimated preliminary costs for each design alternative. Their analysis included a review of potential permitting requirements taking into account the status of each structure as eligible for historic listing and appropriate governing codes. The assessment findings are summarized in the BOD reports, which details recommended repairs, schematic layouts, and cost estimates for the design alternatives. The design alternatives are as follows. Each alternative can include interpretive signage if or once the site is accessible to the public: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structures; structure remains visible from a distance. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, visitors can walk around the perimeter and view the structure up close. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse. Structure is visible and accessible from the exterior and interior. ■ White Barn: storage facility for District use ■ Beatty Home: limited use retreat space Alternative 4: Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Alternative #1 is intended to retain the structure as a landscape feature while maintaining public safety through fencing and signage. This option does not include stabilization improvements. The structure is retained and preserved as -is, in its current condition. Alternative #2 addresses structural deficiencies to retain and stabilize the structure over the longer term, with no interior occupancy allowed. Its goal is to freeze or reduce building deterioration over time while preserving as many of the character -defining features as possible. Often, this alternative is undertaken to afford additional time to implement longer -term preservation, rehabilitation, or historic restoration work for a building. Alternative #3 rehabilitates the building, improves site access, and includes any necessary interior and exterior improvements for private or public reuse of the structure. Alternative #4 removes the structure. The District's Waste Diversion Policy would apply to recycle and salvage materials to the greatest extent possible. Photo -documentation would also apply to record the interior and exterior of the building prior to removal. R-20-39 Page 3 Condition Assessment for the Structures Below are condition assessment summaries for each structure: La Honda Creek White Barn The La Honda Creek White Barn represents a long history of ranching and mid -19th century vernacular architecture. Although its original construction date is unknown, a records search revealed that it was an integral part of cattle rangelands between 1860 and 1973. The site is in the upper portion of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, which is currently limited to 10 visitor permits per day. The White Barn is located along Allen Road, approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the intersection of Bear Gulch Road and Allen Road. Allen Road is a private road; its traffic is generally limited to the residents in the area. The area surrounding the barn is bounded by rich vegetation, rolling grassland, and wooded areas. The White Barn is rectangular with redwood framing, a metal roof, and a wood floor. In 2018, a Historic Resources Evaluation report was prepared for the White Barn. The report concluded that the White Barn was eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Its character -defining features include its use of local construction materials, medium -pitched gable roof, simple rectangular form, vertical board and batten redwood siding, board and batten clad doors, variety of utilitarian fenestration, hand hewn redwood post and beam construction, and simple wide - plank wood floors. ZFA's 2019 condition assessment concluded that overall the White Barn is in fair to poor condition. The doors are operable, but displaced, heavily weathered, and have rusted hinges. The windows do not have any glazing and the frames are weathered and deteriorated. Some of the exterior wall has missing wood pieces that have created large gaps between the framing. These gaps have prompted the intrusion of animals, insects, water and humidity, warping of the wood, and biological growth. The wood floor sits on a wood beam foundation, which sits on or is buried in the ground. The foundation is in very poor condition. It is spongy and brittle to the touch. Most of the hinges and latches on the structure are rusted but work properly. The roof has some surface corrosion, and areas where light and water are getting through, but it is generally in good condition. The interior floor has significant evidence of termites, insect attacks, and biological growth. Several floorboards are loose, split, and displaced, making walking on the interior unstable. The roof and post and beam framing are in good condition, showing only minor signs of discoloring and humidity. There is no asbestos in the structure, but there is lead based paint. In June 2019, Swaim Biological conducted a wildlife survey for the structure. Three bats were observed roosting inside the structure and the area surrounding the structure has suitable bat habitat. The White Barn is presumed to serve as a maternity roost site. Signs of woodrats were not observed in the structure. Sierra Azul Beatty House The Sierra Azul Beatty House sits on a 55 -acre homestead that is located at 17820 Alma Bridge Road, in unincorporated Santa Clara County. It is in a closed area where public access is not currently permitted. The homestead contains a house, a workshop/garage, and a shed. Although there is an assortment of structures on the Beatty Property, the house is the only structure that was assessed as part of this Project. The house was built in the 1860s and is part of the former community of Alma. The Beatty House has a single wall construction with no foundation; its R-20-39 Page 4 wood posts and exterior walls rest directly on the ground. The interior contains two small bedrooms, a parlor, a kitchen, and one bathroom. In 2010, a Historic Resources Evaluation report was prepared for the Beatty House. The report concluded that the Beatty House is eligible for individual listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Its character defining features include its intersecting gable roofs, simple flat trim around the windows, T-shaped floor plan, divided-lite double -hung wood windows, board and batten frame construction, and horizontal siding over the plank -framing construction. ZFA's 2019 condition assessment concluded that overall, the Beatty House is in poor to fair condition. The doors and windows are boarded, and their frames are in fair condition. The exterior wood cladding is in fair to poor condition, showing signs of water damage, weathering, and discoloring. The porch is partially collapsed. The roof is in good condition but shows signs of exposure to humidity and water infiltration. The foundation sits on wood posts directly on the ground; moisture damage was observed where the posts rest on the ground. In June 2019, Swaim Biological conducted a wildlife survey for the structure. Six Myotis sp. bats were observed roosting inside the building and eleven Myotis sp. bats were observed emerging from the structure. The Beatty Home is presumed to serve as a maternity roost. Woodrat signs were observed throughout the structure and three natural nests were observed outside. Design Alternatives for the Structures La Honda Creek White Barn Alternative 1: Retain structure in current state a) Exterior: install a chain -link fence around the structure; remove weeds near the structure. Engineer's estimate of $39,000 - price can be reduced if District staff performs the work. 20 -year maintenance cost: $144,000. Estimate assumes monthly/quarterly visits by two staff members to clear overgrown vegetation and check the exterior and interior of the structure for visual hazards. Alternative 2: Stabilize the structure a) Mothball the structure per Secretary of the Interior standards: board up and secure the windows, doors, and openings/gaps; restrict access to the interior; provide ventilation; develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan. b) Exterior: repair deteriorated portions of the siding, doors, and windows; stabilize loose and peeling paint and repaint the exterior to help protect it from the elements and further reduce deterioration from weathering and ultraviolet radiation. c) Foundation and floor: raise up deteriorated sections of floor and install pressure treated blocking to prevent further deterioration. d) Wildlife management: conduct pest control; preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities; bat deterrence and exclusion as necessary; develop a bat habitat replacement plan; remove wildlife in the structure. e) Site preparation: remove weeds adjacent to the structure. Engineer's Estimate: $117,000; includes construction labor and materials, testing and inspection, construction contingencies, and contractor markup. 20 -year maintenance cost: $288,000. R-20-39 Page 5 Estimate assumes monthly/quarterly visits by two staff members to clear overgrown vegetation and check the exterior and interior of the structure for visual hazards. Access to the interior of the structure would be limited to District staff for maintenance activities. These maintenance activities are only for the maintenance of the structure. Utilizing the building for storage of items/materials is considered an occupancy per the Building Code; continuing to use the building in this manner would necessitate the requirements in Alternative #3. Alternative 3: Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse a) Exterior: repair all deteriorated elements of the siding (40% of the structure), doors, windows; replace elements that have deteriorated beyond repair; stabilize loose and peeling paint and repaint the exterior. b) Foundation: new concrete foundation. c) Floor and roof: new floor; new roof diaphragm. d) Wildlife management: pest control; preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities; bat deterrence and exclusion; develop a bat habitat replacement plan; remove wildlife in the structure. e) ADA: construct an accessible path of travel from the parking area to the residence. Engineer's Estimate: $397,000 - includes construction labor and materials, testing and inspection, construction contingencies, and contractor markup. 20 -year maintenance cost: $288,000. Estimate assumes monthly/quarterly visits by two staff members to clear overgrown vegetation and check the exterior and interior of the structure for visual hazards. Alternative 4: Remove the structure a. Prior to removal, implement wildlife exclusion measures and conduct hazardous materials abatement (e.g. lead -based paint). b. Demolish structure and recycle/salvage materials to the greatest extent possible consistent with the Waste Diversion Policy. c. Restore footprint back to the natural environment. Engineer's estimate: $172,000 - includes construction labor and materials, testing and inspection, construction contingencies, and contractor markup. No 20 -year maintenance cost. The La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation project is part of Measure AA Portfolio #05 (MAA05-008). The White Barn is currently used to house old equipment that was left over from the previous owner. The General Manager does not recommend Alternative #3 for the La Honda Creek White Barn because its improvements are excessive compared to the use of the structure. Monies would be more efficiently expensed under Alternative #2. Sierra Azul Beatty Home Alternative 1: Retain structure in current state a. Exterior: install a chain -link fence around the structure; remove weeds near the structure. Engineer's estimate: $64,000 - price can be reduced if District staff performs the work. 20 -year maintenance cost: $144,000 estimate assumes monthly/quarterly visits by two staff members to clear overgrown vegetation and check the exterior and interior of the structure for visual hazards. R-20-39 Page 6 Alternative 2: Stabilize the structure a) Mothball the structure per Secretary of the Interior standards: board up and secure the structure's windows, doors, and openings/gaps; restrict interior access; provide ventilation; develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan. b) Exterior: repair deteriorated portions of the siding, doors, and windows; remove dilapidated shed attached to the building; repair failed portions of the roof; replace in -kind character defining elements: siding, wood windows, and wood doors; stabilize loose and peeling paint and repaint the exterior. c) Foundation and floor: raise up the deteriorated sections of floor and install pressure treated blocking to prevent further deterioration. d) Wildlife management: pest control, preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities; bat deterrence and exclusion; develop bat habitat replacement plan; remove wildlife in the structure. e) Site preparation: remove weeds adjacent to the structure. Engineer's Estimate: $209,000 - includes construction labor and materials, testing and inspection, construction contingencies, and contractor markup. 20 -year maintenance cost: $288,000. Estimate assumes monthly/quarterly visits by two staff members to clear overgrown vegetation and check the exterior and interior of the structure for visual hazards. Alternative 3: Repair and rehabilitate structure for reuse - Not Recommended a) Exterior: repair all deteriorated elements of the siding (40% of the structure), doors, windows; replace elements that have deteriorated beyond repair; stabilize loose and peeling paint and repaint the exterior; remove asbestos. b) Foundation: new concrete foundation and footings; replace interior posts in the crawlspace framing; replace roof framing and install new stud wall framing on the perimeter wall. c) Floor and roof: new floor; replace missing or damaged floor planking and framing hardware; new roof diaphragm. d) Interior: kitchen and bathroom remodel. e) Wildlife management: pest control; preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities; bat deterrence and exclusion; develop bat habitat replacement plan; remove wildlife in the structure. f) Utilities: upgrade and reconnect plumbing and electrical services; new septic system; identify a viable potable water system. g) ADA: construct an accessible path of travel from the parking area to the residence. Engineer's Estimate: $675,000 - includes construction labor and materials, testing and inspection, construction contingencies, and contractor markup; does not include cost of providing a viable potable water system. 20 -year maintenance cost: $288,000. Estimate assumes monthly/quarterly visits by two staff members to clear overgrown vegetation and check the exterior and interior of the structure for visual hazards. This option allows for a maximum occupancy of five persons. It would completely rehabilitate the structure and conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the California Historic Building Code. However, this option may be infeasible due to lack of water supply for fire suppression and drinking water. In 2011, the District investigated the two existing water wells at the Beatty property. The investigation concluded that the wells were not viable for potable water use. Well #1 was not constructed properly, does not meet American Waterworks Standards for wells, and the California Department of Public Health stated that it cannot be used for potable R-20-39 Page 7 water. Well #2 did not meet water quality standards; its arsenic, aluminum, lead, and fluoride levels exceeded the maximum allowable limit. Well #2 also has a low potential to provide sufficient water quantity. Municipal water does not serve the site; the nearest municipal water point of connection is near the intersection of Highway 17 and Alma Bridge Road (2.5 miles away from the site). There is a transmission water main along Alma Bridge Road, however water services cannot tap into the transmission main. A thorough water study would be required to determine if Alternative #3 is feasible for this site. Municipal sanitary sewer service, through the West Valley Sanitation District, is not available at this site. In order to use municipal sanitary sewer service, the site would need to be annexed into the sewer district and a costly sanitary sewer main extension would be required. The installation of a septic tank is the recommended sanitary sewer treatment for this site. Alternative 4: Remove the structure a. Prior to removal, implement wildlife exclusion measures and conduct hazardous materials abatement (e.g. lead -based paint, asbestos abatement). b. Demolish structure and recycle/salvage materials to the greatest extent possible consistent with the Waste Diversion Policy. c. Restore footprint back to the natural environment. Engineer's estimate: $234,000 - includes construction labor and materials, testing and inspection, construction contingencies, and contractor markup. No 20 -year maintenance cost. The Beatty House is not specifically called out in Measure AA. Board selection of a design alterative for the Beatty House will be incorporated into the Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections Project (MAA22-004), which is a separate project that is currently in early design and will be brought to the full Board at a later date. The Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections Project will add approximately 1.3 miles of new multi -use trail and a new parking area to the Cathedral Oaks area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. FISCAL IMPACT The adopted budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2020 (FY20) includes $216,214 for the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation project (MAA05-008) and $404,544 for the Beatty Parking Area & Trail Connections project (includes Beatty House) (MAA22-004). The recommended action has no direct fiscal impact at this time, however, future implementation activities will have a fiscal impact that are reflected in the cost estimates provided for each alternative. The FY20 budget includes sufficient funds to cover project costs through the end of the fiscal year. Funding for future years budgets will be proposed as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. The Phase I budget covers the condition assessment and basis of design work; it does not include budget for the Phase II design development and construction support. To proceed with Phase II, additional funds will be needed to implement the Board -design alternatives for each structure: • Develop construction drawings, specifications, revised cost estimates • Procure permits • Provide bid support and construction administration support R-20-39 Page 8 • Construction The District will evaluate the best construction approach (design -build or design -bid -build) for each structure based on Board selection of the alternatives. A summary of the costs for each alternative is as follows: Location Costs Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3* Alternative #4 Retain in Current State Stabilize Rehabilitation and Reuse Removal LHC White Barn (MAA05-008) Design - $84,000 $129,000 - Construction $39,000 $117,000 $397,000 $172,000 20 -year Maintenance $144,000 $288,000 $288,000 - SA Beatty Home (MAA22-004) Design - $98,000 $214,000 - Construction $64,000 $209,000 $675,000 $234,000 20 -year Maintenance $144,000 $288,000 $288,000 - Viable potable water system - - Unknown cost - ADA parking and ath of travel - $25,000 to $200,000** $25,000 to $200,000 - Vehicular Access _ $250,000 to $400,000** $250,000 to $400,000 *Option not recommended by General Manager for either structure **Cost of ADA driveway, parking and path of travel may apply if interpretation is provided at Beatty; range provided given the current unknown extent of improvements that may be required. The design for Alternatives #1 and #4 would be performed in-house. Design costs for all alternatives do not include permit costs, which are unknown at this time. Design fees for existing structures are typically higher than design fees for new construction. This is due to the challenges associated with operating within the constraints of existing structures, unknown field conditions, and additional regulatory requirements. The District has received funding and assistance from granting agencies and public/private partnerships to complete prior historic preservation projects. If Alternative #3 is selected for any of these structures, at the Board's direction, staff can seek partnerships with local public agencies, private organizations, or non-profit groups to aid the completion of the Project. To date, however, there have been no known interested parties willing to donate funds for these structures. The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #5 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing allocation, costs -to -date, projected future project expenditures and projected ending balance at the portfolio level. The fiscal impact related to the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation (MAA05-008) project will be presented after alternatives are selected. R-20-39 Page 9 MAA05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing: $11,733,000 Grant Income (through FY23): $0 Total Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000 Life -to -Date Spent (as of 04/09/2020): ($2,552,422) FY20 Encumbrances: ($32,287) Remaining FY20 project budgets: ($243,247) Future MAA05 project costs (projected through FY23): ($3,638,704) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($6,466,660) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $5,266,340 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #5 allocation, costs -to -date, projected life -to -date project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. MAA05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing: $11,733,000 Grant Income (through FY23): $0 Total Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000 Projected Project Expenditures (life of project): MAA05-001 La Honda Creek Land Conservation Opportunities (1,756,093) MAA05-002 Upper La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure (365,515) MAA05-004 La Honda Creek Sears Ranch Interim Parking (5,074) MAA05-005 La Honda Creek Red Barn Parking Area and Easy Access Trail (327,513) MAA05-006 La Honda Creek Sears Ranch Road Repair (98,560) MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation (1,085,883) MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Stabilization and Assessment (1,065,590) MAA05-XXX Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation (87,075) MAA05-010 Restoration Forest Demonstration Project 1,675,357 Total Portfolio Expenditures: (6,466,660) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): 5,266,341 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects allocation, costs -to -date, projected future project expenditures and projected ending balance at the portfolio level. The fiscal impact related to Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections (MAA22-004) project will be presented after alternatives are selected. MAA22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects: $6,714,000 Grant Income (through FY23): $256,016 Total Portfolio Allocation: $6,970,016 Life -to -Date Spent (as of 04/09/2020): ($1,221,543) FY20 Encumbrances: ($146,435) R-20-39 Page 10 Remaining FY20 project budgets: ($130,251) Future MAA22 project costs (projected through FY23): Total Portfolio Expenditures: Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): ($4,021,559) ($5,519,788) $1,450,228 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #22 allocation, costs -to -date, projected life -to -date project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. MAA22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects: $6,714,000 Grant Income (through FY23): $256,016 Total Portfolio Allocation: $6,970,016 Projected Project Expenditures (life of project): 22-001 Hendrys Creek Property Land Restoration ($523,773) 22-002 Sierra Azul Cathedral Oaks Land Conservation -- 22-003 Freudenburg Land Purchase ($540,587) 22-004 Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections* ($3,955,427) 22-XXX Reserved for Land Acquisition ($500,000) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($5,519,787) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $1,450,229 * Pending Board direction on design alternatives for the Beatty property project components (Beatty house, trail connections, parking area and public access improvements, and stewardship activities), future year costs are expected to be modified. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Board approved the assessment of the structures and exploration of different preservation and stabilization alternative at the May 15, 2019 regular meeting and authorized the General Manager to enter into a contract with ZFA to prepare a Basis of Design (R-19-63). The Board approved design alternative #4, to demolish the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin at the April 8, 2020 regular meeting (R-20-35). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Review of design alternatives is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Refer to Board report R-19-51 from the April 24, 2019 Board meeting for further information on CEQA compliance. Appropriate CEQA review will be conducted for any project selected by the Board. R-20-39 Page 11 NEXT STEPS Based on the design alternative selected for each structure, the General Manager will return to the Board with a recommended contract amendment with ZFA to provide design development, permit procurement, bidding support, contractor selection, and construction support services. Attachments: 1. La Honda Creek White Barn Basis of Design, Condition Assessment, and Estimate — ZFA December 2019 2. Beatty Home Basis of Design, Condition Assessment, and Estimate — ZFA December 2019 3. Renderings of La Honda Creek White Barn design alternatives 4. Renderings of Beatty Home design alternatives Responsible Depaittnent Head: Jason Lin, Engineering & Construction Department Manager Prepared by: Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering & Construction Depaitiiient Attachment 1 WHITE (DYER) BARN Structure Stabilization Basis of Design Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, California District Project Number: MAA05-008 March 13, 2020 Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Prepared By: Steven Patton, SE, Senior Associate Matt Frantz, SE, Associate Principal Mark Moore, SE, Principal -in -Charge Attachment 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS BASIS OF DESIGN SUMMARY 1 Introduction 1 Consultants and Exhibits 2 Permitting Agency 2 Regulatory Requirements 2 Governing Building Code 3 Architectural Condition Assessment 3 Structural Condition Assessment 4 Geotechnical Investigation 5 Hazardous Materials Survey 6 Archaeological Survey 6 Arborist Report 6 Wildlife Survey 6 Site Access Constraints 6 Design Alternatives 7 EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Exhibit B: Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers Exhibit C: Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers Exhibit D: Asbestos and Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. Exhibit E: Structural Surveys for Special -Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated Exhibit F: Topographic Site Plan by Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. Exhibit G: Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers Exhibit H: Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI Attachment 1 BASIS OF DESIGN SUMMARY Introduction The White Barn (also referred to as the Dyer Barn) is located on a moderately sloping site off Allen Road in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and is owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The White Barn is a rectangular wood -framed structure that was part of a working farmstead from the 1860s until 1973. The original construction date is unknown, but the District estimates that it was constructed before 1860 and was partially rebuilt after 1900. Figure 1. Project Area Map LA HL .JA CREEK (=} N 1 SPACE PRES VE The exterior of the structure contains vertical redwood boards and doors on each facade. The primary structure is hand-hewn timber post and beam framing that is supported by a redwood beam foundation. The gable roof is comprised of skip sheathing supporting rusted, corrugated metal roofing. The District purchased this property in 1984 and the structure has been uninhabited under the District's ownership. The building is eligible for individual inclusion in the National Register and California Register of Historic Places and qualifies as a historical resource. The lack of use and years of deferred maintenance have left the White Barn in poor condition. The District has initiated a project to assess the structure of the White Barn, along with the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin and Beatty Property Home. The project is being performed in two phases: • Phase 1: Site reconnaissance and structure assessment • Phase 2: Improvement selection and construction documents Attachment 1 This report summarizes the findings and recommendations from the Phase 1 tasks including an assessment of the existing conditions, Basis of Design, conceptual design alternatives, and cost estimates. The proposed alternatives include: 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District use. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values Each alternative can include interpretive signage if or once the site is accessible to the public. Consultants and Exhibits 1111111 The findings and recommendations contained in this summary are based on the following reports, which are provided as Exhibits: • Exhibit A: Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations by Page & Turnbull, Inc. • Exhibit B: Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers • Exhibit C: Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers • Exhibit D: Asbestos and Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. • Exhibit E: Structural Surveys for Special -Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated • Exhibit F: Topographic Site Plan by Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. • Exhibit G: Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers • Exhibit H: Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI Permitting Agency The permitting agency for this building is the County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department (County). A preliminary coordination meeting was performed with the County to discuss the project. The County requested that a follow-up meeting be held once an option is selected by the District. In addition, the County of San Mateo Historic Resource Planner stated that the proposed option must be reviewed and approved by the County's Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). The County did not provide definitive guidance on the permitting schedule as this is dependent on the selected option, but the permitting and review schedule is expected to increase along with the scope of rehabilitation. For instance, the County stated that installation of a fence could likely be approved with an over-the-counter review, whereas rehabilitation for occupancy of the interior of the building would require a formal submittal review process. Demolition of the building or any significant alterations to the historic fabric would require greater review time by the HRAB. Regulatory Requirements The following regulatory contexts, summarized here from Exhibit A, were investigated and considered for this building: • National Register of Historic Places o The National Register of Historic Places is the nation's most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Based on a previous assessment, the White Barn was determined to be eligible for the National Register. Attachment 1 • California Register of Historic Resources o The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Based on a previous assessment, the White Barn was determined to be eligible for the California Register. • Secretary of The Interior's Standards o The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) establish the professional standards for work on historic buildings receiving funding assistance through the Historic Preservation Fund authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act. The Standards and associated guidelines are also often adopted by state and local permitting agencies for the purpose of reviewing potential projects involving historic resources. Governing Building Code AP4f. Since the building is eligible for the National and California Registers, the California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24) is the governing building code. As discussed in Exhibit A, the code provides performance -oriented rather than prescriptive provisions for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, and other associated work to enable the continued use of historical resources. The code is intended to recognize the unique construction problems and obstacles to meeting code requirements of new construction when executing projects on historic resources that may have been constructed per earlier codes, or without any building code at all. Architectural Condition Assessment The results of the architectural conditions assessment, detailed in Exhibit A, are summarized below. Windows All exterior windows have been boarded up from the exterior and are now only visible from the interior. The sash observed were in generally fair to poor condition as none retains the original glazing and framing is somewhat weathered and deteriorated. Exterior Doors There are four doors to the Barn, made of wood boards of similar characteristics to the boards used for the facades. Several of the boards are displaced in the vertical direction, giving an overall feeling of being out of square with the facade openings. In general, they are in fair to poor condition showing heavy weathering and exposure to the elements, even though still operable with some difficulty. Exterior Wood Cladding - The exterior board -and -batten siding is in fair to poor condition. Many of the battens have collapsed or are missing, leaving the joints of the vertical boards open with varying gaps between them, which allows the intrusion of small animals, insects, water and humidity, and direct sun into the building, reducing its sheltering effect of the building interiors. The boards show a high degree of weathering from exposure to the elements. In some cases, the bottom of the boards has rotted away completely and no longer covers the grade beams. Foundations The foundation of this building is made of wood grade beams sitting on or partially buried in the ground, making it vulnerable to moisture from the ground, animals, and insects. Where the foundation beams were visible at the building perimeter, they are in very poor condition, being spongy and brittle to the touch; the condition of intermediate foundation beams could not be visually assessed. Corrugated Metal Roof It is assumed that the existing galvanized, corrugated metal roof is a non -original replacement for the original roofing, however no remnants of earlier roofing were observed during the site visit. The corrugated metal roofing Attachment 1 exhibits some surface corrosion, but generally appears to be sound. Interior observations indicate that the panels may not be lapped properly which allows water to enter the building. Interior Floors The wood floorboards display signs of heavy use, discoloring and partial loss of mass along the edges next to the facade cladding. Some areas have been affected by termites and other insect attacks. Several floorboards are loose, and do not appear to be attached to the framing below, which creates a condition for unstable footing when walking inside the building. Interior Wood Feeding Crib, Pen and Partitions These partitions are formed by wood boards nailed to the main structure supports and some secondary posts mounted directly over the floorboards. They are in generally fair condition. Several pieces have biological growth where exposed to the elements, and some show signs of insect damage. Roof Framing The roof framing appears to represent a few different eras of construction. The roof framing appears to be in generally good condition, with the exception of the exposed rafter tails, which are in generally fair condition, where the wood is splitting and beginning to check in some locations. However, no significant deterioration or loss of profile was observed. Post and Beam Framing The main supporting structure is made of hand-hewn single pieces of redwood. All the main frame elements are in good condition, showing only minor signs of decoloring and humidity near the base of the posts, where they are in direct contact with the foundations. Structural Condition Assessment • Mik The results of the structural condition assessment are detailed in the report in Exhibit B. The structural assessment includes a review of the existing materials conditions as well as the expected performance of the structure under seismic and gravity loading. Overview NMI The structure above grade appears to be in generally fair to good structural condition for the era of construction. The base of the structure in contact with soil appears to be in poor condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. Roof Framing The roof is composed of corrugated metal sheathing that is supported by 1x6 skip sheathing spanning between 2x6 rafters spaced at 3 feet on center. The roof framing, viewed from the ground, appeared to be generally in good condition. Some localized deterioration due to weather ingress is assumed because of gaps observed in the corrugated metal roofing. Post and Beam Framing The primary structure is comprised of a timber post and beam system with 8x8 posts at 8 feet on center along the north and south ends of the building, as well as along the center of the building below the ridge. These posts support 8x8 beams, which in turn support the roof rafters. The timber framing was observed to be in generally good condition. Attachment 1 Walls Walls are comprised of 1x vertical board and batten siding, which is generally in fair to poor condition with obvious signs of deterioration due to weather exposure particularly at the bottom of the walls adjacent to soil. Battens are also missing in many locations and the walls do not provide a waterproof or pest resistant facade for the interior of the structure. Floor Framing At the ground floor level, the flooring is composed of 2x straight sheathing that is assumed to be supported by wood floor framing. The floor sheathing is in fair to poor condition with deterioration observed at some locations, particularly at the perimeter of the building. The floor framing sits just above or directly on the soil, so there is no access to observe the condition or type of framing. Deterioration due to soil contact is assumed in the floor framing throughout. Foundations The foundations for this structure are limited to wood grade beams placed directly on the soil. This wood has significantly deteriorated and contributed to settlement of the structure over time. Seismic Force -Resisting System The building generally lacks a seismic force -resisting system. De -facto lateral resistance is provided by the knee braces in the post and beam system, although this provides limited strength and ductility and is inadequate to resist the significant seismic forces that may occur at this site. The corrugated metal roofing serves as the de - facto roof diaphragm. A Tier 1 assessment of the structure using ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings identified a number of potential deficiencies including the lack of a complete and well-defined seismic force -resisting system and the lack of steel hardware at post to beam connections. The structure is expected to perform poorly during a significant earthquake. Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation report has been prepared by Romig Engineers, which is in Exhibit C. Based on the geotechnical investigation, the primary geotechnical concerns at the site (and the reference page in the geotechnical investigation report) are: • The depth to competent bearing material appears to vary from the surface at the north side to up to 6 feet below ground surface at the south side. Foundations are recommended to extend down to competent bearing material to reduce the potential for differential settlement, or deepened excavations could be backfilled with compacted fill or lean concrete cement slurry (page 7). • The preliminary Hazard Zone Map indicates that the site is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to earthquake -induced landslides. However, it appears that the mapping is associated with the steep slopes in the general site vicinity, rather than the slopes in the immediate vicinity of the barn, and no obvious indications of slope instability immediately surrounding the barn were observed (page 4). • The potential for severe ground shaking at the site due to moderate to large earthquakes in the area (page 7). The bottom of all footing excavations should be cleaned of loose, soft, overly moist or collapsible soil and debris. A member of the geotechnical engineer's staff should observe the excavations to confirm that they have at least the minimum recommended dimensions, are founded in competent residual soil or bedrock, and have been properly cleaned prior to placing concrete forms and reinforcing steel. If existing fill soil, colluvial soil, or disturbed bedrock is encountered at the foundation bearing depth, the geotechnical field representative will require these materials to be removed and a deeper embedment depth provided before reinforcing steel and concrete is placed. Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey An Asbestos and Lead Survey was performed by Terracon, which is documented in the report in Exhibit D. In summary, no asbestos containing materials were detected in the tested materials. Lead based paint was confirmed in the building and is the only hazardous material identified. Disturbance of lead -containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. If loose and/or peeling paint is disturbed, it is required to be mitigated. Archaeological Survey An archaeological survey is not required for all Alternatives and was therefore not included in this Assessment. An archaeological survey would only be performed for Alternatives 3 and 4. Should these options be selected, the survey would be performed concurrent with the documentation for that phase. Arborist Report An arborist's report was not required for this building, since there are no trees in the immediate vicinity of the building. Wildlife Survey A wildlife survey was performed by Swaim Biological, Incorporated, on June 17, 2019, which is in Exhibit E, to identify special status mammal species in and around the building. Suitable bat roost habitat is present within the structure and moderately suitable maternity roost habitat is found adjacent to the structure in the form of bat tree roost habitat. Based on the observed presence of at least three bats roosting within the structure, this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. No signs of woodrats were present in the structure or surrounding natural habitat. While no woodrat nests were observed, the riparian habitat near the structure provides suitable habitat and absence of woodrats should not be assumed. Recommendations to address the presence of wildlife include: • Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities. • Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1 of SBI's report. The bat wintering period is generally from November 16 through February 15, no building or tree work should be conducted during this time if bats are present. • Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. • The need for replacement habitat due to impacts on the maternity roost per District guidelines is dependent upon whether the planned stabilization activities will eliminate roosting habitat. Determination of the need for replacement habitat plan should coincide with the development of the deterrent plan. • Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. Site Access Constraints The following items were considered when developing cost estimates for BOD options and should be considered for future planning of repairs and maintenance for the White Barn: • Wildlife Habitat — The presence of protected species in the area requires that personnel and visitors to the site follow District guidelines and advisory documents for access. District access permits are required for this site. Bird nesting season is February 15 to August 30. Bat maternity season is from April 15 to August 31. Torpor season is from November 15 to February 15. Construction restrictions will be in effect for these times. A biological monitor is required to be present during the first phases of construction or demolition to ensure bats are not harmed. Exclusion may also be warranted depending on the type of work taking place. Attachment 1 Design Alternatives To provide long-term stability of the structure and safety of the public and District staff, we recommend implementation of one of the following alternatives. Four alternatives are explored to address the existing condition of the structure, which range from minimal work with restricted public access to a complete rehabilitation to allow for re -occupancy. Demolition is also explored as an option. Cost estimates have been developed for each option to assist the District with decision making. Alternative 1: Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. Recommendations: h • Install a secure chain -link fence, a minimum of 8 -foot -tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the District's guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 400 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building and porches to provide a safety "buffer" space in case collapse of the framing occurs in the future. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. Install signage at building and entry gates. • Weed abatement at perimeter. • Additional factors may need to be considered regarding the recommended lifespan of this option. The estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $39,004. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit H. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate 111 line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 2: Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. Recommendations: • Install pressure treated blocking/shims at locations of deteriorated wood grade beams to prevent further settlement of the superstructure and deterioration of the foundation. • Provide wood cross bracing at the interior of exterior walls. • The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. • Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: a. Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b. Remove furnishings, trash, wildlife waste products and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc.) and ensure it is broom -clean. c. Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d. Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. • Secretary of the Interior's Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. • Weed abatement at perimeter. • Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in -kind to match the existing sound elements. Fenestration that is currently boarded -up from the exterior should be repaired, and openings covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. The non - historic plywood should also be removed. Attachment 1 • Remove peeling, loose lead -containing paint from the exterior of the Barn. Disturbance of lead -containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Repaint the exterior to protect the historic redwood cladding from the elements. The preparation of the substrate for painting should be gentle, it is not recommended that the existing texture of the wood be significantly altered. The condition of the coating should be inspected annually, and the building will likely require repainting every 7-10 years to maintain a sound coating on the wood. • Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). • Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. The estimated cost for Alternative 2 is $116,423. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit H. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 3: Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District use. The California Historic Building Code (CHBC) would be utilized to define the design criteria. Recommendations: • The stabilization methods proposed for this option target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re -occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code to allow for re -occupancy of the existing building. It is assumed there is no change of occupancy from the existing. • Provide new structural members including: o New concrete foundation o New vertical seismic force -resisting system o New roof diaphragm o Remove and replace deteriorated siding (assume 40% require repair). o New floor system • Secretary of the Interior's Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. • In addition to the envelope repair described in proposed project alternative #2 for the Barn, rehabilitating the building for a storage use should include the installation of interior lighting to meet code required minimums for safety. • Remove lead -containing paint. Disturbance of lead -containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. • Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). • Given the wooden construction of the building, it would be inadvisable to store any flammable materials within the barn, or any items that would increase the risk of fire or damage to the historic resource. • Care should be taken to protect the door framing from impact damage; install temporary protection if necessary, in a manner that does not attach directly to or otherwise damage the historic fabric of the barn. Attachment 1 • Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. The estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $396,904. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit H. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 4: Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Recommendations: /NIL • Demolishing the structure may require additional processes to obtain demolition permits. • Remove lead -containing paint prior to demolition. Disturbance of lead -containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. See Exhibit D. • Develop a replacement bat maternity roost habitat plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). • The site landscaping would be rehabilitated to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. • Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre -demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site should also be considered. • The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. • Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this option is dependent upon regulatory approval process. • Due to the relatively small size of the structure, the District may consider dismantling and relocating the structure as an alternative to demolition. The estimated cost for Alternative 4 is $171,982. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit H. Attachment 1 EXHIBIT A Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations By Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek White (Dyer) Barn INTRODUCTION 2 METHODOLOGY 2 GUIDING PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES AND CONTEXT 3 THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 3 Criteria 3 Integrity 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES 4 Criteria 4 Integrity 4 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS 5 Preservation 5 Rehabilitation 5 Restoration 5 Reconstruction 5 Standards for Preservation 6 Standards for Rehabilitation 6 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE 7 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE 7 LA HONDA CREEK WHITE (DYER) BARN 8 CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS 8 4, HARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES 8 Milki Exterior 8 Interior 8 PERMI I`1'ING AGENCY — AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION 8 EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT 9 Exterior 10 Interior 11 PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 13 September 20, 2019 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation INTRODUCTION Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn The purpose of this section of the Basis of Design report is to evaluate the existing architectural conditions and the potential impacts and implications of four proposed project alternatives/treatments for the White (Dyer) Barn in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. The four proposed project alternatives/treatments are as follows: 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District Use 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. METHODOLOGY To evaluate the existing conditions of the three subject buildings, Page & Turnbull conducted visual conditions assessments and documented the existing conditions with digital photography. The conditions were evaluated based on the following rating system of good, fair, and poor conditions: Good (G) The building element / feature is intact, structurally sound, and performing its intended purpose. The element / feature needs no repair or rehabilitation, but only routine or preventative maintenance. Fair (F) The building element / feature shows signs of aging and one or more of the following conditions is present: a) There are early signs of wear, failure, or deterioration though the element / feature and its components are generally structurally sound and performing their intended purpose; or b) There is failure of one individual component. Poor (P) The building element / feature shows signs of deterioration and one or more the following conditions is present: a) The element / feature is no longer performing its intended purpose; or b) Feature is missing; or c) Deterioration or damage affects more than 30% of the element / feature; or d) The element / feature shows signs of imminent failure or breakdown. Unknown (U) The element / feature was not accessible for assessment or not enough information is available to make an evaluation. Evaluation of the proposed project alternatives took into account the historic significance of the La Honda Creek White Barn, and the applicable preservation principles and context, including the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the 2016 California Building Code, the 2016 California Existing Building Code, and the 2016 California Historical Building Code. Evaluation of the structural conditions and recommendations for the remediation of structural deficiencies was performed by ZFA. Refer to the assessment report and treatment recommendations produced by ZFA for all structural considerations and impacts. March 13, 2020 - 2 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn GUIDING PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES AND CONTEXT The following section describes the various preservation principles and context that are applicable to the La Honda Creek White Barn. For analysis and considerations related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it may apply to the proposed project alternatives, additional studies may need to be performed. THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places is the nation's most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of "exceptional importance," or if they are contributors to a potential historic district. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. There are four basic criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. Criteria Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity Once a resource has been identified as being potentially eligible for listing in the National Register, its historic integrity must be evaluated. The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. These aspects are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred; Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s); Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property; Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form the historic property; March 13, 2020 - 3 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory; Feeling is the property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and the historic property. In order to be determined eligible for listing, these aspects must closely relate to the resource's significance and must be intact. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register -listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. Criteria Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Resources eligible for the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Integrity The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National Register. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity —location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association —are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing in the California Register and the National Register. There is a critical distinction between the two registers, however, and that is the degree of integrity that a property can retain and still be considered eligible for listing. According to the California Office of Historic Preservation: It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its March 13, 2020 - 4 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant or historical information or specific data.' SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (hereafter "Standards") establish the professional standards for work on historic buildings receiving funding assistance through the Historic Preservation Fund authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act. The Standards and associated guidelines are also often adopted by state and local permitting agencies for the purpose of reviewing potential projects involving historic resources. The Standards define four approaches to the treatment of historic properties, adapted below. A variety of factors contribute to the selection of an appropriate treatment, including the historic significance, physical condition, proposed use, and intended interpretation of the subject properties. Preservation: Focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials. Requires retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building's historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time. When the property's distinctive materials, features, and spaces are essentially intact and thus convey the historic significance without extensive repair or replacement; when depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate; and when a continuing or new use does not require additions or extensive alterations, Preservation may be considered as a treatment. Rehabilitation: Acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character. When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. Restoration: Allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods. When the property's design, architectural, or historical significance during a particular period of time outweighs the potential loss of extant materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods; when there is substantial physical and documentary evidence for the work; and when contemporary alterations and additions are not planned, Restoration may be considered as a treatment. Reconstruction: Establish a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non -surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes. When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret a property's historic value (including the re-creation of missing components in a historic district or site); when no other property with the same associative value has survived; and when sufficient historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction, Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment. Once a treatment option has been established, an associated set of standards are applied. In addition to the Standards, the Secretary of the Interior publishes guidelines with specific examples to aid in interpreting how the standards are applied. For the purposes of this Basis of Design, the treatment approaches most appropriate to the four proposed project alternatives are Preservation and Rehabilitation. ' California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, November 2004) March 13, 2020 - S - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn Standards for Preservation: 1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color and texture. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Standards for Rehabilitation* 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. March 13, 2020 - 6 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn *For the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, there is a similar but distinct set of standards. Further discussion of the appropriate treatment options for the La Honda Creek White Barn can be found in the following sections of this Basis of Design Report. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE The California Historical Building Code is Part 8 of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). The code provides performance -oriented rather than prescriptive provisions for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, and other associated work to enable the continued use of historical resources.2 The code is intended to recognize the unique construction problems and obstacles to meeting code requirements of new construction when executing projects on historic resources that may have been constructed per earlier codes, or without any building code at all. From Section 8-101.2, Purpose: AMP—Ilmt The purpose of the CHBC is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties (Chapter 8-2). The CHBC is intended to provide solutions for the preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties, to promote sustainability, to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost-effective approach to preservation, and to provide for the reasonable safety of the occupants or users. The CHBC requires enforcing agencies to accept solutions that are reasonably equivalent to the regular code (as defined in Chapter 8-2) when dealing with qualified historical buildings or properties. Generally, qualified historical buildings may continue to be used as they were historically unless the continued use or occupancy constitutes a distinct hazard to life safety as defined in the CHBC.3 For a change in occupancy, e.g. in the case of a rehabilitation or adaptive use, the property may need to be adapted to conform with the applicable requirements of its new use as defined in the CHBC.4 The White Barn has been determined to be an historic resource; see the Current Historic Status section in the continuation of this report for further information. CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE For existing buildings not designated as historic resources, the provisions of the California Existing Building Code (CEBC) apply to their repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, and relocations Per the 2016 CEBC, Section 101.3, the intent of the code is to "provide flexibility to permit the use of alternative approaches to achieve compliance with minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare insofar as they are affected by the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, and relocation of existing buildings." The White Barn is an historic resource, but the CEBC may still be applied by the Authority Having Jurisdiction where applicable. 2 California Historical Building Code, 2016, vii. 3 2016 California Historical Building Code, Section 8-102.1.4. 4 2016 California Historical Building Code, Section 8-302.2. 5 2016 California Existing Building Code, Section 101.2 March 13, 2020 - 7 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation LA HONDA CREEK WHITE (DYER) BARN CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn The La Honda Creek White Barn (Barn), also known as the Dyer Barn, was evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources in an Historical Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared by LSA in February 2018. The HRE found that the Barn appears eligible for individual listing in both the National Register and the California Register under several different significance criteria. Under Criterion A of the National Register and Criterion 1 of the California Register, the Barn was found significant for its association with the early agricultural land use and development of San Mateo County in the mid -19th through the mid -20th centuries.6 Under Criterion C of the National Register and Criterion 3 of the California Register, the Barn was found significant as a representative example of a Vernacular utilitarian building type associated with the mid -19th century agricultural development of San Mateo County and California.? And finally, under Criterion D of the National Register and Criterion 4 of the California Register, the Barn was found significant for its representation of and potential to yield further information about a local building tradition and joinery technology with labor-intensive craftsmanship, and the use of local redwood in its period of construction.8 CHARACTER -DEFINING FEATURES Exterior • The siting of the Barn in a sparsely developed area that still conveys its rural history and association. • Use of simple, utilitarian, and primarily local construction materials • Medium -pitched gable roof. • Simple, rectangular form and plan. • Vertical board -and -batten redwood siding • Board -and -batten clad doors. • Variety of utilitarian fenestration associated with agricultural use Interior • Hand-hewn redwood post -and -beam construction. • Largely open volume from the floor to the roof framing without internal horizontal structural members. • Simple, wide -plank wood floors PERMITTING AGENCY —AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION The Barn is located in San Mateo County within a Resource Management zone. The authority having jurisdiction for environmental approvals including the issuance of planning approvals and building permits is the County of San Mateo Department of Planning and Building Department. Permitted uses within the Resource Management Zone include the following: • Agricultural uses and accessory structures, on -site sales of agricultural products. • Nurseries and greenhouses • Temporary trailer parks and other housing for farm laborers • Livestock raising and grazing 6 LSA Historical Resource Evaluation of the Dyer Barn, 2018, page 30. 7 Ibid, page 31. 8 Ibid, page 32. March 13, 2020 - 8 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation • Dairies • Kennels or Catteries ■ Timber Harvesting (see zoning code for specifications) ■ Quarries and waste disposal • Single-family residences ■ Public and private clubs • Public recreation • Commercial recreation EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn On July 10th, 2019 Page & Turnbull performed a visual conditions assessment of the exterior and interior of the White Barn (Barn), located at the end of Kebet Ridge Road, Redwood City, approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the intersection of Bear Gulch Road and Allen Road. It was built circa 1860 and it currently shares an open sloping hillside site with two contemporary buildings belonging to the La Honda Creek Preserve, which is operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The site is generally characterized by rolling grassland bound by wooded areas. The Barn stands at an elevation below the contemporary structures at the toe of a hill on a narrow flat section. The hillside continues to fall away from the barn's South face into a heavily wooded ravine. Conditions were examined from ground level for the building exteriors and interiors. For the assessment of structural conditions, please see the report produced by ZFA. The conditions assessment investigated the following exterior building elements: • Wood ▪ Windows, ▪ Doors, ▪ Exterior wood cladding, ▪ Foundations, o Roof framing, • Metal elements o Corrugated metal roof, Hinges, latches and miscellaneous elements. ■ Landscape Surrounding hill slopes and possible affectation from natural rain water draining around the base of the building, The interior building elements investigated were the following: • Wood Floors, Interior wood feeding crib, pen and partitions, Roof framing, • Post and beam framing. Interiors were evaluated for the possible presence of protected animal species residing in the building, none of which were observed during this inspection. An analysis of specific code deficiencies for occupancy was not conducted, however general code considerations related to the four proposed project alternatives will be discussed as applicable. March 13, 2020 - 9 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn Previous documentation provided to the Page & Turnbull team is listed below. The Conditions Assessment and Recommendations Report by Interactive Resources, Inc. provides a number of exterior and interior stabilization recommendations related to the structural stability and material maintenance of the building. It is Page & Turnbull's understanding that none of the recommended interventions have occurred, and we therefore may reiterate the need for many of them. • Conditions Assessment and Recommendations Report, by Interactive Resources, Inc. (11/30/2017). • Historical Resource Evaluation of the Dyer Barn, by LSA (02/06/2018). While the scope of this report does not include the preparation of restoration documents or specific recommendations for repairs, any costing of such work should consider that the work is to be performed in accordance with the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation which indicate the following hierarchy: protect and retain, repair, or replace in -kind (if deteriorated beyond repair). 14§6, Exterior Windows All exterior windows have been boarded up from the exterior and are now only visible from the interior. The sash observed were in generally fair to poor condition as none retains the original glazing and framing is somewhat weathered and deteriorated. The windows to the east facade are single sash six-lite windows. There is also an open panel on the south facade covered by a sliding panel which slides on wooden tracks. Doors There are four doors to the Barn, made of wood boards of similar characteristics to the boards used for the facades, two symmetrical on the east facade and the two others on the south and west facade near that corner of the building. The boards of the doors are nailed on the inside to a wood formed "Z" shape support on which the hinges are attached. Several of the boards are displaced in the vertical direction, giving an overall feeling of being out of square with the facade openings. In general they are in fair to poor condition showing heavy weathering and exposure to the elements, even though still operable with some difficulty. The door hinges are attached to the wood using highly rusted square headed nuts and bolts. Exterior Wood Cladding The exterior board -and -batten siding is in fair to poor condition. Many of the battens have collapsed or are missing, leaving only remnants and traces to indicate their prior size and position. The missing battens leave the joints of the vertical boards open with varying gaps between them, which allows the intrusion of small animals, insects, water and humidity, and direct sun into the building, reducing its sheltering effect of the building interiors. The boards show a high degree of weathering from exposure to the elements, warping lengthwise in most cases, which widens the gaps separating them. Some boards have partially collapsed or are missing along the facades. The boards display a greater degree of deterioration due to moisture toward the bottom of the boards; in some cases the bottom of the boards has rotted away completely and no longer covers the grade beams. Most boards display diverse degrees of weathering and biological growth, especially along the sides where battens are missing. Some of the boards bear evidence of termite and other insect attacks. UV damage is greatest on the west and south facades of the Barn, and appeared to be at least 1/8 -inch deep in some areas. Foundations The foundation of this building is made of wood grade beams sitting on or partially buried in the ground, making it vulnerable to moisture from the ground, animals, and insects. Where the foundation beams were visible at the building perimeter, they are in very poor condition, being spongy and brittle to the touch; the condition of intermediate foundation beams could not be visually assessed. March 13, 2020 - 10 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn Corrugated Metal Roof It is assumed that the existing galvanized, corrugated metal roof is a non -original replacement for the original roofing, however no remnants of earlier roofing were observed during the site visit. The corrugated metal roofing exhibits some surface corrosion, but generally appears to be sound. Interior observations indicate that the panels may not be lapped properly within the rows of roofing, as the joints between them show diffused light coming through in bright conditions. If light is getting through, then water likely is too to some degree. Hinges, Latches and Miscellaneous Elements Most of the other metal elements, such as hinges, nuts and bolts, and latches, although rusted in all their surface, appear not to be severely damaged, being in fairly good conditions and working properly. Rehabilitation would require removing and treating the existing corrosion, applying a corrosion -inhibiting coating, and oiling the hardware as required for proper operation. Site The barn is sited within the slope of a hill such that the land slopes toward the building on the north side and down from the building on the south side while being roughly level to the east and west. The primary approach to the building is from the east. With water from the northern portion of the site draining toward the building's north side, combined with the greater shading from the sun on the north side, it is not surprising that the greatest deterioration and loss of historic fabric due to moisture was observed on the north side of the building at or near the ground. i Interior Floors The wood floor boards display signs of heavy use, discoloring and partial loss of mass along the edges next to the facade cladding. Some areas have been affected by termites and other insect attacks and have biological growth, especially next to the cladding openings where boards are missing. Several floorboards are loose, and do not appear to be attached to the framing below, which creates a condition for unstable footing when walking inside the building. Interior Wood Feeding Crib, Pen and Partitions These partitions formed by wood boards nailed to the main structure supports and some secondary posts mounted directly over the floorboards. They are in generally fair condition for structures that were utilitarian in their original construction. In some areas the boards have split or become displaced, but otherwise the material is generally sound. Several pieces have biological growth where exposed the to the elements, and some show signs of insect damage. Roof framing 1. The roof framing appears to represent a few different eras of construction. The ridge beam is supported by tall, hand-hewn redwood posts that and appear to be original, and are mortise and tenon jointed to the beam. The ridge beam, rafters, and purlins all appear to be machine -milled, and may be a later replacement for the original roof framing. The rafters lap each other over the ridge beam instead of being mitered and, form a 90 -degree gable. Toe -nailed knee bracing is extant between the center posts and ridge beams in a few locations, but not all. Similarly, there are tie -beams between a few of the rafters running just underneath the ridge beam, but otherwise the volume of the barn inscribed by the framing is open. The roof framing appears to be in generally good condition, with the exception of the exposed rafter tails, which are in generally fair condition. Greater exposure to the elements has caused the rafter tails to be more weathered than the protected, interior sections of framing, and in several cases the wood is splitting and beginning to March 13, 2020 - 11 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn check, however no significant deterioration or loss of profile was observed. The side closest to the corrugated metal displays some weather originated discoloring due to the heat originated by the metal and from humidity and rot possibly from filtering water or from condensation effects in the cooler hours of the day. Post and Beam Framing The main supporting structure is made of hand-hewn single pieces of redwood. Joints between the main framing elements are formed by the mortise -and -tenon system, not requiring nails or other auxiliary elements to secure the joints. All the main frame elements are in good conditions, showing only minor signs of decoloring and humidity near the base of the posts, where they are in direct contact with the foundations. These signs also show on beams in the locations next to the facade cladding where either or both boards and battens are missing. Figure 3 West facade, some boards have collapsed or arc missing parts. Metal sheet addition to tie the boards to the beam on the other side East facade has symmetric doors and windows. Traces of whitewash at the top part of the cladding. Skip sheathing boards covered by another that follows the roof line of the • . e end. Roof at 45 degree angle Figure 5 Square nuts and bolts holding hinges of doors Foundation beam. Deterioration along lower section of boards conforming all facades. Heavy use and weathering deterioration of floor boards. Figure 4 Heavy weathering and deterioration of the cladding in lower section of all facades Sliding window at the south facade. March 13, 2020 - 12 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Figure 7 Main structure elements are hand-hewn while exterior cladding is machine sawn. Open separation between cladding boards corresponds to miss' • battens. Some boards are missin• or have colla.sed Figure 9 Main structure elements are hand-hewn while exterior cladding is machine sawn. Open separation between cladding boards corresponds to missin• battens. Some boards are miss • or have colla.sed Figure 11 Boarded window of the east facade. Interior partitions added and modified as reduired by use needs Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn Mortice and tenon joints between main structure elements. Hinges for doors are attached using square headed nuts and bolts. Some boards from the claddin• are missin•. Dis.la of humidi and moss • owth 1 Figure 10 Image 35: Floor boards heavily weathered. Cladding boards missing or collapsed with openings due to missing battens. Evident signs of humidi and deterioration of floors and claddin• Figure 12 Rafters joints to the main structure beam by mortice and tenon or similar system, without use of metal elements. Corrugated metal roof PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The following evaluation concerns the work required to address architectural deterioration and deficiencies, and plan for the necessary building maintenance associated with the proposed project alternatives. For recommended structural stabilization and rehabilitation work, please see the report produced by ZFA. 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. March 13, 2020 - 13 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn This option proposes to install a fence around the perimeter of the property to restrict access to the home in order to mitigate potential public safety concerns associated with unauthorized access to the building. No distinct hazards were observed at the exterior of the building at the time of survey in July, 2019. Since this option does not seek to stabilize the resource for any future use or prevent further deterioration, it would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The absence of paint on the exterior of the building exposes the historic wood materials to further deterioration from weather and ultraviolet radiation. While it is difficult to estimate how long it would be before the building materials have deteriorated beyond repair, the cost of repair and rehabilitation will continue to increase with time as the deterioration progresses. Since the vernacular use of redwood framing and cladding is an important character -defining feature, maintenance and retention of those materials is important to the integrity of the resource and its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Significant loss of material integrity could jeopardize the eligibility of the resource. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. Of the treatments defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Standards), the standards for Preservation are the most appropriate to this proposed project alternative. To mitigate potential falling hazards, the security of exterior features such as shutters, board -and -batten siding, and roofing should be inspected and re -secured as required. Fenestration that is currently boarded -up should be inspected semi-annually and plywood protection should be re -secured as required. The Barn foundation should be stabilized and repaired as described in the Structural recommendations. Once necessary repairs and selective replacement work have been completed, the Barn should be repainted to protect the historic redwood cladding from the elements. Due to the depth of the UV damage in some areas, the preparation of the substrate for painting should be as gentle as possible to achieve a sound coating, and it is not recommended that the existing texture of the wood be significantly altered. The condition of the coating should be inspected annually, and the building will likely require repainting every 7-10 years to maintain a sound coating on the wood. All doors and windows should be secured against unauthorized entry. Additional security measures to guard against unauthorized access should be installed at potential points of access in order to protect the building and the public. The building interior should be inspected at least semi-annually for signs of human, wildlife, or water intrusion into the building, and any observed intrusion should be addressed as soon as possible. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District Use Of the treatments defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (Standards), the standard for Rehabilitation would be the most appropriate to this proposed project alternative. In addition to the envelope repair described in proposed project alternative #2 for the Barn, rehabilitating the building for a storage use should include the following: • Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in -kind to match the existing sound elements. • The floor in the building should be rehabilitated • Interior lighting should be installed to meet code required minimums for safety. Given the wooden construction of the building, it would be inadvisable to store any flammable materials within the barn, or any items that would increase the risk of fire or damage to the historic March 13, 2020 - 14 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn resource. Care should be taken when moving items in and out of the building to protect the door framing from impact damage; install temporary protection if necessary in a manner that does not attach directly to or otherwise damage the historic fabric of the barn. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Demolishing the White (Dyer) Barn, which has been determined to be an historic resource, may require additional processes to obtain demolition permits. Debris from the demolished building, including all hazardous materials, would need to be disposed of in accordance with Local, State, and Federal Regulations, and the site would need to be cleaned up and remedi.ted to allow for public access. March 13, 2020 - 15 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Attachment 1 EXHIBIT B Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers Attachment 1 WHITE (DYER) BARN STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT AND BASIS OF DESIGN (BOD) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, California District Project Number: MAA05-008 Isia, March 13, 2020 Prepared For Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Prepared By Steven Patton, SE, Senior Associate Mark Moore, SE, Principal -in -Charge San Carlos, California Attachment 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 4 EVALUATION OVERVIEW 4 STRUCTURE OVERVIEW 4 General Site Description 4 Structural Performance Objective 4 Site Seismicity (Earthquake Activity) 5 Structural Systems and Condition Assessment 7 Building Type 12 Historical Performance 12 Benchmark Buildings 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 Structural Seismic Deficiencies 13 Structural Gravity Deficiencies 13 BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative 14 RELIABILITY OF SEISMIC EVALUATIONS 16 CLOSING 16 APPENDIX A — SITE MAP 17 APPENDIX B — STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 19 APPENDIX C — SUMMARY DATA SHEET 20 Summary Data Sheet 21 Material Properties 22 APPENDIX D — TIER 1 CHECKLISTS AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS 23 Attachment 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The following structural Basis of Design report provides an evaluation of the condition and anticipated performance of the existing White Barn structure to support seismic and gravity loading as well as a conceptual design of the structural scope required to achieve four proposed project alternatives. The findings and recommendations contained herein, in conjunction with those from the other team members, are intended to assist the District with cost evaluations and decision -making. The four alternatives being considered are: 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District use. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values Structural Condition Assessment Visual assessments were performed during multiple site visits in 2019 by Steven Patton of ZFA. The exterior and interior of the structure was observed. The structure above grade appears to be in generally fair to good structural condition for the era of construction. The base of the structure in contact with soil appears to be in poor condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. No original construction structural drawings are available for review. As -built drawings contained herein were created by ZFA based on visual observations and measurements made during site visits. The following major structural deficiencies were also observed in the existing building; all photos referenced can be found in the Structural Systems and Condition Assessment section. • The structure is founded on wood timber beams that are sit directly on the soil and have significantly deteriorated over time (see Photo 3 and Photo 4). No foundation is present. • Settlement was observed likely due to the deteriorating base of the structure. The structure is generally tilting in the downhill direction of the slope. • The structure supporting gravity loads is comprised of wood timber, which are connected with mortise and tenons. This connection is not acceptable by current building code standards. • Deterioration was observed at framing and exterior siding locations that have been exposed to weather and moisture (see Photo 5). Seismic Assessment The White Barn has been reviewed for the Collapse Prevention performance level using the Tier 1 evaluation of the ASCE 41-17 standard Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. The building was reviewed based on the visual assessments performed by ZFA staff, geotechnical investigation performed by Romig Engineers and ASCE 41-17 structural Tier 1 checklists. Nonstructural elements were not included in the scope of the Tier 1 analysis. The building is constructed of roughhewn timber framing connected with mortise and tenon joints. The exterior walls are comprised of vertical board and batten siding. The structure lacks a conventional seismic force -resisting system, and is expected to perform poorly during a significant earthquake. Six (6) Tier 1 deficiencies were identified as noncompliant. See the Findings and Recommendations section of this report for additional information on the items noted below. Attachment 1 • LOAD PATH: The structure does not contain a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serve to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. o There is no defined lateral force -resisting system present in the existing structure. The timber frames and exterior siding are not adequate to transfer seismic forces to the foundation. The corrugated steel roof is not adequate to act as a roof diaphragm. o The structure is supported directly on the soil with no foundation. • REDUNDANCY: Shear walls are not present and therefore there is no redundancy in the lateral force - resisting system. • WOOD POSTS: There are no foundations, and therefore no positive connections between wood posts and the foundation. • GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: Columns and girders are connected by mortise and tenon; no plates or connection hardware are present. • ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: Continuous roof diaphragm chords are not present around the perimeter of the roof. • OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The de -facto roof diaphragm is corrugated steel which is not adequate to resist seismic forces. Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation report has been prepared by Romig Engineers (Appendix C). Based on the geotechnical investigation, the primary geotechnical concerns at the site (and the reference page in the geotechnical investigation report) are: • Varying depth to competent bearing material up to 6 feet is anticipated across the structure (page 7). • The site is noted to be in an area that is potentially susceptible to earthquake -induced landslides, but due to the moderate slopes in the immediate vicinity of the barn, this is not likely to be of concern for this structure (page 4). • The potential for severe ground shaking at the site due to moderate to large earthquakes in the area (page 7). The following evaluation report details our structural findings and recommendations. c%) Attachment 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this evaluation is to review and evaluate the structure of the subject building using visual observations, engineering judgment and criteria provided by ASCE 41-17. The evaluation is focused on identifying deficiencies that are present in the structural system that may affect the performance of the building under gravity or seismic loads to identify structural scope that is required to stabilize the building for mothballing or rehabilitate it as an occupied structure. The seismic evaluation is based on criteria that has been tailored for specific building types and desired levels of building performance based on observation of structural and nonstructural damage occurring in previous earthquakes and provides a means to identify general deficiencies based on anticipated behavior of specific building types. The Tier 1 evaluation procedure of ASCE 41-17 was used to assess primary components and connections in the seismic force -resisting system using standard checklists and simplified structural calculations. Checklist items are general in nature and are intended to highlight building components that do not exceed conservative construction guidelines. If the element is compliant, it is anticipated to perform adequately under seismic loading without additional review or strengthening. Items indicated as non -compliant in a Tier 1 checklist are considered potential deficiencies that require further analysis. The results of the Tier 1 evaluation provide a general understanding of the anticipated performance of the structure in its current state and inform the structural scope required to provide overall stability if the building is to be mothballed with no public access to the interior. If the building is to be rehabilitated for an occupied use, the Tier 1 results indicate that retrofit of the structure is required. The retrofit is designed to the governing building code, which is the 2016 or 2019 California Historical Building Code. The structural scope for these alternatives, as well as restricted access and demolition options, are summarized in this report. EVALUATION OVERVIEW This structural evaluation report for the existing White Barn is based on the following: • The American Society of Civil Engineers/ Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI 41-17) Standard Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings using Tier 1, Collapse Prevention structural evaluation criteria. • Multiple site visits for general review of the structure were performed by Steven Patton of ZFA. No destructive testing or removal of finishes was performed or included in the scope. • Existing material properties as indicated in Appendix C. • Review of the following geotechnical report and hazard maps: • Geotechnical Report prepared by Romig Engineers dated October 2019 STRUCTURE OVERVIEW General Site Description The building is located on a moderately sloping site located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) La Honda Creek Preserve in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County near Woodside, California. The building site is in a remote area south of Skyline Boulevard on Kebet Ridge/Allen Road. The building is currently unoccupied. Structural Performance Objective In accordance with ASCE 41-17, a structural performance objective consists of a target performance level for structural elements in combination with a specific seismic hazard level. For the seismic assessment of the subject building, the Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE) was selected. While the BPOE seeks Attachment 1 safety for occupants with reasonable confidence, it allows existing structures to be assessed for seismic forces that are less than those required for the design of new structures under the current building code (2016 or 2019 California Building Code). Buildings meeting the BPOE are expected to experience nominal damage from relatively frequent, moderate earthquakes, but have the potential for significant damage and economic loss from the most severe, though less frequent, seismic events. It should be noted that the cost savings from not retrofitting the subject building up to current code standards may result in greater repair costs in the event of an earthquake. For the purposes of this Tier 1 review to the BPOE, the specified level of performance is Collapse Prevention (S- 5) for this former agriculture building (assumed to be Risk Category 11 as defined by ASCE 7). The Collapse Prevention Structural Performance Level as described by ASCE/SEI 41-17 is defined as: "...the post -earthquake damage state in which a structure has damaged components and continues to support gravity loads but retains no margin against collapse. A structure in compliance with the acceptance criteria specified in this standard for this Structural Performance Level is expected to achieve this state." Retrofit of the building to satisfy this performance objective would only be mandatory for Alternative 3 which would allow for re -occupancy of the unpermitted building. The S-5 Structural Performance Level can be defined as less than the Life Safety (S-3) performance level. For further context, the Life Safety Structural Performance Level (S-3), is described as: `... the post -earthquake damage state in which significant damage to the structure has occurred but some margin against either partial or total structural collapse remains.' A Tier 1 evaluation of nonstructural elements was not included within the scope of this review. Site Seismicity (Earthquake Activity) In accordance with ASCE 41-17, `seismicity', or the potential for ground motion, is classified into regions defined as Low, Moderate, or High. These regions are based on mapped site accelerations Ss and Si, which are then modified by site coefficients Fa and F„ to produce the Design Spectral Accelerations, Sos (short period) and Sol (1 -second period). The successful performance of buildings in areas of high seismicity depends on a combination of strength, ductility of structural components, and the presence of a fully interconnected, balanced, and complete seismic force -resisting system. Where buildings occur in lower levels of seismicity, the strength and ductility required for better performance is significantly reduced and building components or connections with additional strength capacity can in some cases be adequate despite lacking ductility. Based on the geotechnical investigation and report prepared for the subject site, the soil profile of this building has been determined by the geotechnical engineer to be classified as Site Class C as defined by ASCE 41-17 and is used in determination of site coefficients Fa and F. According to the site values indicated by the geotechnical report, USGS data and evaluated using seismic acceleration equations and tables of ASCE 41-17, the site is located in a region of High Seismicity with a design short -period spectral response acceleration parameter (Sos) of 1.556g and a design spectral response acceleration parameter at a one second period (Sol) of 0.97g. Per the table shown below, both of these parameters exceed the lower boundaries for high seismicity classification, 0.5g for Sos and 0.2g for Sol. Attachment 1 Level of Seismicity* SDS SDI Low < 0.167g < 0.067g Moderate '- 0.167g >_ 0.067g < 0.500g < 0.200g High >_ 0.500g >_ 0.200g *Where Sxs and Sxi values fall in different levels of seismicity, the higher level shall be used. The spectral response parameters Ss and Si were obtained for the BSE-2E seismic hazard level for existing structures (BPOE). The acceleration values were adjusted for the maximum direction and site class in accordance with ASCE 41-17 Section 2.4.1, and compared to BSE-2N (defined by current building code as the maximum considered earthquake for design of new buildings) to determine the design values for the Tier 1 analysis, since values obtained for the BSE-1 E hazard level need not exceed the hazard levels for new construction. The following charts depict the response spectra for the multiple seismic hazard levels defined by ASCE 41-17: two existing hazard levels and two hazard levels corresponding to code design of new structures (ASCE 7). Note that the seismic hazard level for design of existing structures is lower than that for new construction for this structure (period <1.0). Seismic Hazard Level* Building Code Reference Design Spectral Acceleration Sa(xs)(T) BSE-1E ASCE 41-17 (20%/50yr) 0.98g BSE-1N ASCE 7-10 Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) 1.556g BSE-2E ASCE 41-17 (5%/50yr) 1.991g BSE-2N sidered Earthquake ASCE 7-10 Maximum CE) 2.334g * Seismic hazard levels denoted with 'E' for existing buildings or 'N' for new building equivalency. Attachment 1 2.50 on 2.00 (15 0 Td 1.50 0 v 0 0' 1.00 v cc �n t.; e 0.50 0.00 0 -BSE-1E BSE-2E 0.2 0.4 0.6 Structural Systems and Condition Assessment General The one-story, wood -framed barn structure was constructed around 1860. The building footprint is approximately 25 feet by 40 feet, with a floor area of approximately 960 square feet. Plans, sections and elevations are shown for reference in Figures 1 through 4. Refer to Appendix B for a complete set of annotated structural drawings. The building is rectangular in plan, with the long direction oriented in the East-West direction. Modifications to the existing structure, including the installation of some newer framing, appears to have occurred since the original construction. This is evident by the presence of machine -milled framing in some locations, which contrasts with the roughhewn original timber framing. BSE-1N BSE-2N -75% BSE-1N BPOE Seismic Hazard (BSE-2E) 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Visual assessments were performed during multiple site visits in 2019 by Steven Patton of ZFA. The exterior and interior of the structure was observed. The structure above grade appears to be in generally fair to good structural condition for the era of construction. The base of the structure in contact with soil appears to be in poor condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. No original construction structural drawings are available for review. Roof Framing The roof is composed of corrugated metal sheathing that is supported by 1x6 skip sheathing at 16" on center. The corrugated metal roofing was added subsequent to the original construction. The 1x sheathing is supported by 2x6 rafters spaced at 3 feet on center. The rafters are supported by a ridge beam at the peak of the gable roof and an 8x8 beam at the exterior walls. There is an approximately 10" overhang at the ends of the gable roof. The roof framing, viewed from the ground, appeared to be generally in good condition. Some localized deterioration due to weather ingress is assumed because of gaps observed in the corrugated metal roofing. Post and Beam Framing The primary structure is comprised of a timber post and beam system with 8x8 posts at 8 feet on center along the north and south ends of the building, as well as along the center of the building below the ridge. These posts Attachment 1 support 8x8 beams, which in turn support the roof rafters. Posts and beams are typically connected with mortice and tenon joints. 4x4 knee braces are located along each column line, which were originally intended to provide lateral stability for wind loading. The roof framing plan is shown in Figure 2 and a section through the building is shown in Figure 3. An elevation of the south side of the building is shown in Figure 4. The timber framing was observed to be in generally good condition. 3 2 53.1 53.9 I 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR I 2/ OJ 1x PARTIAL HT y0P WALL. '�� s c{ } , sa. I .,.. t I — 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT' PARTITIONS ____,) I I til , I 1 1 Figure 1: Existing Ground Floor Framing Plan developed by ZFA F 3 Attachment 1 L"1 0 0 K 3 3 RIDGE D4 (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. 6d [�3 Fd A Figure 2. Existing Roof Framing Plan developed by ZFA L r CORU GATED MIL ROOF DDCK 1x5 CONT SHEATHING @ 15'bc TRUE DIM 2x5 RAFTERS @ TYP =1 I 11= -1 I I 1 1 1 - TO RIDGE BEAMS 17'-8" Y TO BEAM lx SIDING PER PLAN 8x8 ON GRADE TO FLOOR h Figure 3. Transverse Section Through Building developed by ZFA Attachment 1 TO RIDGE BEAM Walls 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP i Figure 4. South Elevation developed by ZFA IN6 TO BEAM T-0-0" TO FLOOR0"4 0' Walls are comprised of lx vertical board and batten siding that spans between the wood grade beam and roof beam along the shorter sides of the building. At the gable ends of the building, a wind girt is located at the lower roof level and provides an intermediate support for 1x siding between the wood grade beam and perimeter roof rafters. The wall siding was generally in fair to poor condition with obvious signs of deterioration due to weather exposure particularly at the bottom of the walls adjacent to soil (see Photo 5). Battens are also missing in many locations and the walls do not provide a waterproof or pest resistant fagade for the interior of the structure. Miscellaneous interior partial height walls are present in some locations and do not contribute to the structural integrity of the building. Floor Framing 4\11 At the ground floor level, the flooring is composed of 2x straight sheathing that is assumed to be supported by wood floor framing. The floor sheathing is in fair to poor condition with deterioration observed at some locations, particularly at the perimeter of the building (see Photo 6). The floor framing sits just above or directly on the soil, so there is no access to observe the condition or type of framing. Deterioration due to soil contact is assumed in the floor framing throughout. Seismic Force -Resisting System The building generally lacks a seismic force -resisting system. De -facto lateral resistance is provided by the knee braces in the post and beam system, although this provides limited strength and ductility and is inadequate to resist the significant seismic forces that may occur at this site. The corrugated metal roofing serves as the de - facto roof diaphragm. Foundations The foundations for this structure are limited to wood grade beams placed directly on the soil. This wood has significantly deteriorated and contributed to settlement of the structure over time. Attachment 1 Material Properties Basic properties for existing structural materials found on existing building documentation or in accordance with ASCE 41 code prescribed minimum structural values utilized in the analysis calculations can be found in Appendix C. Photo 1. Front elevation Photo 3. Existing condition at foundation Photo 4. Existing condition at foundation Photo 2. Side elevation Photo 5. Deterioration of exterior siding Photo 6. Deterioration at floor sheathing Attachment 1 Photo 7. Deterioration at base of exterior wall Building Type This structure type is not defined specifically in ASCE 41-17. The closest type of structure this building can be classified as is Building Type W1: Wood -Light Frames, which was used for this evaluation. As described by ASCE/SEI 41-17: `These buildings are single- or multiple -family dwellings one or more stories high with plan areas less than or equal to 3,000 ft2. Building loads are light, and the framing spans are short. Floor and roof framing consist of wood joists or rafters on wood studs spaced no more than 24in. apart. The first floor framing is supported directly on the foundation system or is raised up on cripple studs and post -and -beam supports. The foundation is permitted to consist of a variety of elements. Chimneys, where present, consist of solid brick masonry, masonry veneer, or wood frame with internal metal flues. Seismic forces are resisted by wood frame diaphragms and shear -walls. Floor and roof diaphragms consist of straight or diagonal lumber sheathing, tongue - and -groove planks, oriented strand board, plywood, or other materials. Shear walls are permitted to consist of straight or lumber sheathing, plank siding, oriented strand board, plywood, stucco, gypsum board, particleboard, fiberboard, or similarly performing materials. Interior partitions are sheathed from floor to floor with plaster or gypsum board. Older construction often has open -front garages at the lowest story and is permitted to be split- level.' Historical Performance Smaller wood -framed structures, particularly those with wood shear walls, have typically performed relatively well in earthquake events provided adequate shear wall length is maintained without localized stresses in short wall piers and there are no significant plan or vertical discontinuities such as a difference in stiffness between floors in a multi -storied structure. This structure is significantly different than these typical structures, entirely lacking any shear walls, and is expected to perform poorly during a significant earthquake. Benchmark Buildings In addition to classifying buildings by type of construction, ASCE 41 identifies `Benchmark Buildings' for each type. The detailing of seismic force -resisting systems in Benchmark Buildings is generally considered to meet the performance requirements of ASCE 41. When a building is determined to meet Benchmark Building requirements through field verification of construction compliant with benchmark code requirements, only review of foundation and non-structural elements is required. The subject building was constructed in the 1860's, well before the benchmark date for this type of construction. Since it does not meet the criteria of a Benchmark Building, a complete Tier 1 analysis is performed. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Structural Seismic Deficiencies The ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 Collapse Prevention and Building Type Specific Checklists indicate the primary building structure as non-compliant in six (6) areas. These items would all need to be addressed prior to re-occupancy of the building (Alternative 3). General recommendations to address the deficiencies are summarized below; more specific structural scope items are provided in Alternative 3 of the BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative section and Appendix B. a) LOAD PATH: The structure does not contain a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serve to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. i) Recommendation: In order to provide a complete seismic force-resisting system, provide the following: i. New vertical lateral system such as wood shear walls or tension braced frames. ii. New plywood sheathing on existing roof framing. iii. New foundations beneath the new lateral system. b) REDUNDANCY: Shear walls are not present and therefore there is no redundancy in the lateral force-resisting system. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) will address this deficiency. c) WOOD POSTS: There are no foundations, and therefore no positive connections between wood posts and the foundation. i) Recommendation: Provide new concrete spread footings with steel hardware connections to existing posts. d) GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: Columns and girders are connected by mortise and tenon; no plates or connection hardware are present. i) Recommendation: Provide steel hardware at connection. Connection reinforcing may be designed to be hidden and not obscure the historical connections. e) ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: Continuous roof diaphragm chords are not present around the perimeter of the roof. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) will address this deficiency. f) OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The de-facto roof diaphragm is corrugated steel which is not adequate to resist seismic forces. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) will address this deficiency. Structural Gravity Deficiencies a) The structure is founded on wood timber beams that are sit directly on the soil and have significantly deteriorated over time (see Photo 3 and Photo 4). No foundation is present. i) Recommendation: Provide new concrete strip footing around perimeter of structure and concrete spread footings under interior posts. Repair deteriorated framing. b) Settlement was observed likely due to the deteriorating base of the structure. The structure is generally tilting in the downhill direction of the slope. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) will address this deficiency. DR A F T Attachment 1 c) The structure supporting gravity loads is comprised of wood timber, which are connected with mortise and tenons. While these connections have historically performed adequately, this connection is not commonly acceptable by current standards. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) of seismic deficiencies will address this deficiency. d) Deterioration was observed at some framing locations that have been exposed to weather and moisture (see Photo 5). i) Recommendation: Replace deteriorated framing in kind. Repair exterior of structure to mitigate future exposure to weather. BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative Recommendations for the following alternatives are also shown in the conceptual structural drawings in Appendix A of this report. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1: Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. (See drawing 1-S2.1) 1) Install a secure fence, a minimum of 8-foot-tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the District’s guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 300 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building to provide a safety “buffer” space in case col lapse of the framing occurs in the future. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. Install signage at building and entry gates. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2: Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. (See drawings 2-S2.1 & 2-S3.1) The recommended stabilization methods specifically target only the gravity related structural deficiencies and would not allow for re-occupancy of the building. The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. 1) Install pressure treated blocking/shims at locations of deteriorated wood grade beams to prevent further settlement of the superstructure. 2) Provide 2x10 cross bracing at the interior of exterior walls. Assume two bays of cross bracing along each perimeter wall in longitudinal direction and one or two bays of bracing along each perimeter wall in the transverse direction (assume 7 bays total) to allow for access through at least one door opening. 3) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines including: a. Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b. Remove furnishings, trash, wildlife waste products and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc) and ensure it is broom-clean. c. Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d. Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. 4) Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in-kind to match the existing sound elements. Fenestration that is currently boarded-up from the exterior should be repaired, and the non-historic plywood should be removed. DR A F T Attachment 1 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3: Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District use. (See drawing 3-S2.1 & 3-S3.1) The stabilization methods proposed for this alternative target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re-occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code (2016 or 2019 California Historical Building Code) to allow for re-occupancy of the existing building. 1) New concrete foundation: a. Install new 18-inch wide by 30-inch deep shallow strip footing around the perimeter of the building that extends a minimum of 6” above grade. See geotechnical report for requirements. Assume 130 linear feet of continuous footing. b. Install new 24-inch square by 30-inch deep spread footings under existing posts. See geotechnical report for requirements. Spread footings to extend a minimum of 6” above grade. Assume 4 spread footings. c. The foundation can be installed in sections in a “hit and miss” sequence to avoid the need to shore the entire structure simultaneously. d. Provide new anchors and hardware for connection of existing structure to new foundation. e. Assume existing floor sheathing and framing will be removed and replaced after foundation installation. 2) New vertical seismic force-resisting system: a. New wood-framed walls with plywood sheathing may be installed on the interior of the perimeter walls. Shear walls would be anchored to new foundations. Plywood sheathing will be visible on the interior face of the exterior walls and will obstruct the view of the existing, exterior wood siding from the inside of the building. b. If sheathing of walls is not desired for historic or aesthetic reasons, provide steel tension rod bracing at each perimeter wall with connections to new foundations and new roof diaphragm. Assume two bays of cross bracing along each perimeter wall in longitudinal direction and one bay of bracing along each perimeter wall in the transverse direction (6 bays total). 3) New roof diaphragm: a. Remove existing roofing. Install new plywood on existing skip sheathing over roof rafters (approximately 1,100 square feet). Provide allowance for repair/replacement of 20% of roof framing. b. Connect roof diaphragm to new vertical lateral system with wood blocking, steel fasteners and steel connection hardware. c. Provide new roofing and underlayment over entire roof. Alternatively, existing corrugated metal roofing could be reused as long as a waterproof substrate is installed beneath. 4) Remove and replace deteriorated siding (assume 40% require repair). 5) New floor system: a. New wood-framed floor system (assume 2x10 joists at 16” on center) with minimum 8” clearance above grade to bottom of floor joists, sheathed with new ¾” plywood. Assume 24” of soil over entire floor area will be required to be excavated and removed from site to allow for site preparation in accordance with the geotechnical report and for adequate clearance of the floor framing above grade. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #4: Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. For cost estimation purposes, the complete demolition of the structure, its foundations and site elements assuming that demolition would likely follow a more typical process for permitting and contracting the demolition work. Assume 60 tons of wood materials would need to be removed from the site. (See drawing 4-S2.1) • Remove lead-containing paint prior to demolition. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. See Exhibit D. DR A F T Attachment 1 " The site landscaping would be rehabilitated by planting native grasses and tress to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. " Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre-demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site should also be considered. " The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. " Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this option is dependent upon regulatory approval process. " Due to the relatively small size of the structure, the District may consider dismantling and relocating the structure as an alternative to demolition. RELIABILITY OF SEISMIC EVALUATIONS In general, structural engineers do not have the ability to predict the exact damage to a building as a result of an earthquake. There will be a wide variation of damage from building to building due to the variations in ground motion and varying types and quality of construction. In addition, engineers cannot predict the exact ground motions of the earthquake that may strike a given building. Design and evaluation of buildings are performed using general guidelines and information from past earthquakes. Engineers and the codes used for design and evaluation have been conservative when attempting to ensure that building design meets minimum standards of Collapse Prevention. This effort is based on science and technology as well as on observations ma de from actual seismic events. Building design and evaluation codes are constantly evolving to better meet performance targets based on this information. Continued research will improve predictive methods and facilitate performance-based engineering. It has been estimated that, given design ground motions, a small percent of new buildings and a slightly greater percent of retrofit buildings may fail to meet their expected performance. CLOSING The structural condition assessment, seismic review, analysis and BOD associated with this evaluation were based on the site review of framing and elements of the building which are plainly visible. No attempt was made to uncover hidden conditions or perform any destructive or non-destructive testing. The items discussed in this report are subject to revision should more information become available. This report is general in nature and does not imply that the recommendations listed above are the only structural requirements that must be made to the existing str ucture to meet current code criteria. We understand you may have questions regarding this evaluation and are available for comment and explanations. Please call with any questions you may have. Thank you for choosing ZFA Structural Engineers to assist you with this building seismic and structural stabilization review. Steven Patton, SE Mark Moore, SE Senior Associate Executive Principal DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX A – SITE MAP DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX B – STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES DR A F T Attachment 1 ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 12 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " 8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0" 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR7Éx8 ROUGH HEWN POST, TYP1x PARTIAL HT WALL, TYP 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT" PARTITIONS 4" 4" 40'-0" 25 ' - 4 " 4" 4" 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ 20 ' - 0 " 10'-0" 20 ' - 0 " 20'-0" ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ SL O P E SL O P E RIDGE 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 1 11/22/2019 1:49:34 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING PLANS 1-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN BOD OPTION 1 N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 1 3 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW Revision Schedule #Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 1: 1) Install a secure fence, a minimum of 8-foot-tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the District’s guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 400 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building and porches to provide a safety “buffer” space in case collapse of the framing occurs in the future. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. 2) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. NOTE 1 NOTE 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ SL O P E SL O P E RIDGE (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ 12 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " 8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0" 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR7Éx8 ROUGH HEWN POST, TYP1x PARTIAL HT WALL, TYP 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT" PARTITIONS 4" 4" 40'-0" 25 ' - 4 " 4" 4" NOTE 2 TYPICAL AT (8) LOCATIONS NOTE 1 AS REQUIRED ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 2 11/22/2019 1:49:41 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING PLANS 2-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 3 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 2 N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN BOD OPTION 2 Revision Schedule #Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 2: 1) Install pressure treated blocking/shims at locations of deteriorated wood grade beams to prevent further settlement of the superstructure and deterioration of the foundation. 2) Provide wood cross bracing at the interior of exterior walls. 3) The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. 4) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: a) Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b) Remove furnishings, trash, wildlife waste products and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc.) and ensure it is broom-clean. c) Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d) Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. 5) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 6) Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in-kind to match the existing sound elements. Fenestration that is currently boarded-up from the exterior should be repaired, and openings covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. The non-historic plywood should also be removed. 7) Remove peeling, loose lead-containing paint from the exterior of the Barn. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Repaint the exterior to protect the historic redwood cladding from the elements. The preparation of the substrate for painting should be gentle, it is not recommended that the existing texture of the wood be significantly altered. The condition of the coating should be inspected annually, and the building will likely require repainting every 7-10 years to maintain a sound coating on the wood. 8) Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). 9) Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. 10) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. NOTE 1NOTE 2 NOTE 7 NOTE 2 NOTE 7 NOTE 2 NOTE 1 NOTE 7 NOTE 6 DR A F T Attachment 1 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 123 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM A B C D E F 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 1 2 3 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM ABCDEF 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 123 8x POST, TYP PER PLAN TRUE DIM 2x6 RAFTERS @ 3'-0"oc, TYP 1x SIDING PER PLAN 8x8 ON GRADE2x FLR SHEATHING PER PLAN CORUGATED MTL ROOF DECK 1x6 CONT SHEATHING @ 16"oc 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________ GRADE TYP 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM A B C D E F 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 2 11/22/2019 1:49:42 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS 2-S3.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"5 SOUTH ELEVATION BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"4 NORTH ELEVATION BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"3 BUILDING SECTION - TRANSVERSE BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"6 BUILDING SECTION - LONGITUDINAL BOD OPTION 2 Revision Schedule #Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 2: 1) Install pressure treated blocking/shims at locations of deteriorated wood grade beams to prevent further settlement of the superstructure and deterioration of the foundation. 2) Provide wood cross bracing at the interior of exterior walls. 3) The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. 4) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: a) Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b) Remove furnishings, trash, wildlife waste products and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc.) and ensure it is broom-clean. c) Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d) Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. 5) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 6) Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in-kind to match the existing sound elements. Fenestration that is currently boarded-up from the exterior should be repaired, and openings covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. The non-historic plywood should also be removed. 7) Remove peeling, loose lead-containing paint from the exterior of the Barn. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Repaint the exterior to protect the historic redwood cladding from the elements. The preparation of the substrate for painting should be gentle, it is not recommended that the existing texture of the wood be significantly altered. The condition of the coating should be inspected annually, and the building will likely require repainting every 7-10 years to maintain a sound coating on the wood. 8) Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). 9) Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. 10) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. NOTE 1 NOTE 2 NOTE 7NOTE 6 DR A F T Attachment 1 ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ 12 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " 8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0" 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR7Éx8 ROUGH HEWN POST, TYP1x PARTIAL HT WALL, TYP 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT" PARTITIONS 4" 4" 40'-0" 25 ' - 4 " 4" 4" ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ SL O P E SL O P E RIDGE (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 3 11/22/2019 1:49:45 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING PLANS 3-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 1 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN BOD OPTION 3 N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 3 Revision Schedule #Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 3: 1) The stabilization methods proposed for this option target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re-occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code to allow for re-occupancy of the existing building. It is assumed there is no change of occupancy from the existing. 2) Provide new structural members including: a) New concrete foundation b) New vertical seismic force-resisting system c) New roof diaphragm d) Remove and replace deteriorated siding (assume 40% require repair). e) New floor system 3) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 4) In addition to the envelope repair described in proposed project alternative #2 for the Barn, rehabilitating the building for a storage use should include the installation of interior lighting to meet code required minimums for safety. 5) Remove lead-containing paint. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule NOTE 2a NOTE 2b NOTE 2d NOTE 2e NOTE 5 NOTE 2c NOTE 2b NOTE 2dNOTE 5 NOTE 2a NOTE 2bNOTE 2d NOTE 5 NOTE 2c Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). Given the wooden construction of the building, it would be inadvisable to store any flammable materials within the barn, or any items that would increase the risk of fire or damage to the historic resource. Care should be taken to protect the door framing from impact damage; install temporary protection if necessary, in a manner that does not attach directly to or otherwise damage the historic fabric of the barn. Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. 10) add 9) ins 8) sto 7) roo 6) DR A F T Attachment 1 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 123 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 1 2 3 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 123 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 8x POST, TYP PER PLAN TRUE DIM 2x6 RAFTERS @ 3'-0"oc, TYP 1x SIDING PER PLAN 8x8 ON GRADE2x FLR SHEATHING PER PLAN CORUGATED MTL ROOF DECK 1x6 CONT SHEATHING @ 16"oc 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM ABCDEF 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM A B C D E F 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM A B C D E F 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 3 11/22/2019 1:49:46 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS 3-S3.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION C BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"3 BUILDING SECTION - TRANSVERSE BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"4 NORTH ELEVATION BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"5 SOUTH ELEVATION BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"6 BUILDING SECTION - LONGITUDINAL BOD OPTION 3 Revision Schedule #Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 NOTE 2a NOTE 2c NOTE 2e NOTE 2b NOTE 2b NOTE 2b NOTE 2b NOTE 2a NOTE 2e NOTE 2eNOTE 2e NOTE 2e NOTE 2c NOTE 2c NOTE 2c NOTE 2c NOTE 2c NOTE 2d NOTE 2d BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 3: 1) The stabilization methods proposed for this option target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re-occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code to allow for re-occupancy of the existing building. It is assumed there is no change of occupancy from the existing. 2) Provide new structural members including: a) New concrete foundation b) New vertical seismic force-resisting system c) New roof diaphragm d) Remove and replace deteriorated siding (assume 40% require repair). e) New floor system 3) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 4) In addition to the envelope repair described in proposed project alternative #2 for the Barn, rehabilitating the building for a storage use should include the installation of interior lighting to meet code required minimums for safety. 5) Remove lead-containing paint. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). Given the wooden construction of the building, it would be inadvisable to store any flammable materials within the barn, or any items that would increase the risk of fire or damage to the historic resource. Care should be taken to protect the door framing from impact damage; install temporary protection if necessary, in a manner that does not attach directly to or otherwise damage the historic fabric of the barn. Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. 10) add 9) ins 8) sto 7) roo 6) DR A F T Attachment 1 ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ 12 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " 8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0" 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR7Éx8 ROUGH HEWN POST, TYP1x PARTIAL HT WALL, TYP 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT" PARTITIONS 4" 4" 40'-0" 25 ' - 4 " 4" 4" ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ DEMO ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ SL O P E SL O P E RIDGE (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ DEMO 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 4 11/22/2019 1:49:51 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING PLANS 4-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 3 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN BOD OPTION 4 N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 4 Revision Schedule #Revision Description Date DEMO PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 4: 1) Demolishing the structure, which has been determined an historic resource, may require additional processes to obtain demolition permits. DR A F T 2) Remove lead-containing paint prior to demolition. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. See Exhibit D. 3) Develop a replacement bat maternity roost habitat plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). 4) The site landscaping would be rehabilitated to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. 5)Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre-demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site should also be considered. 6) The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. 7) Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this option is dependent upon regulatory approval process. 8) Due to the relatively small size of the structure, the District may consider dismantling and relocating the structure as an alternative to demolition. 9) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. Attachment 1 APPENDIX C – SUMMARY DATA SHEET DR A F T Attachment 1 Summary Data Sheet BUILDING DATA Building Name: White Barn Date: 10/3/19 Building Address: La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Latitude: 37.3777 Longitude: -122.2798 By: Year Built: 1860’s Year(s) Remodeled: N/A Original Design Code: None Area (sf): 960 Length (ft): 40 Width (ft): 25 No. of Stories: 1 Story Height (ft): 8 to 18 Total Height (ft): 18 USE Industrial Office Warehouse Hospital Residential Educational Other: Storage CONSTRUCTION DATA Gravity Load Structural System: Timber Post and Beam Exterior Transverse Walls: Vertical Siding Openings? Yes Exterior Longitudinal Walls: Vertical Siding Openings? Yes Roof Materials/Framing: Wood rafters with skip sheathing and corrugated metal Intermediate Floors/Framing: N/A Ground Floor: Wood straight sheathing on framing Columns: 8x8 Foundation: Wood on ground General Condition of Structure: Poor to Fair Levels Below Grade? none Special Features and Comments: LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM Longitudinal Transverse System: N/A N/A Vertical Elements: N/A N/A Diaphragms: N/A N/A Connections: N/A N/A EVALUATION DATA BSE-1N Spectral Response Accelerations: SDS= 1.556 SD1= 0.97 Soil Factors: Class= C Fa= 1.0 Fv= null BSE-2E Spectral Response Accelerations: SXS= 1.991 SX1= 1.351 Level of Seismicity: BSE-2E Performance Level: CP Building Period: T= Not determined Spectral Acceleration: Sa= 1.991 Modification Factor: CmC1C2= 1.300 Building Weight: W= 25k Pseudo Lateral Force: V=CmC1C2SaW= 64.7k DR A F T Attachment 1 BUILDING CLASSIFICATION: W1 – Wood Frames Commercial and Industrial REQUIRED TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Yes No Basic Configuration Checklist Building Type W2 Structural Checklist Nonstructural Component Checklist FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIREMENT: Tier 2 analysis on (6) structural deficiencies Material Properties To account for uncertainty in the as-built data, a knowledge factor, κ, is determined according to ASCE 41 Table 6-1. Where material properties are not listed in existing construction documents, a knowledge factor of κ=0.75 shall be applied to the component capacities for deformation-controlled and force-controlled actions. Default Value per ASCE 41, 4.2.3? Alternate Value Source? Concrete Table (4-2) Foundation Footings: f’c= 2,000 psi Slabs: f’c= 2,000 psi Reinforcing Steel Table (4-3) #3 Bars: fy= 40,000 psi #4 Bars and Larger: fy= 40,000 psi Carpentry Wall studs and light Framing Members Site Harvested first growth Redwood Sheathing – Horizontal 1x lumber Sawn Lumber Posts, Timbers, beams and Stringers Construction Grade DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX D – TIER 1 CHECKLISTS AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-1 Very Low Seismicity Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path,including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer theinertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1) WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependenton the diaphragm for lateral support are anchored for out-of-plane forcesat each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps thatare developed into the diaphragm. Connections have adequate strength toresist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure ofSection 4.4.3.7. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.1) Table 17-1. Very Low Seismicity Checklist Structural Components C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-2 Basic Configuration (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1) There is no defined lateral force-resisting system. ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.25%of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 0.5% in moderate seismicity, and 1.5% in high seismicity. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.2) MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of themain structure. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.3) WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above. (Commentary: Sec. A2.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.1) One story building. SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force-resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.2) One story building. VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force- resisting system are continuous to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.3) One story building. GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.5. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.4) One story building. MASS:There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.6. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.5) One story building. TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.6) Moderate Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Table 17-2. Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist Low Seismicity Building System—General Building System—Building Configuration C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-2 Basic Configuration (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. Table 17-2. Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.1. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquake- induced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.2. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.3. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) OVERTURNING:The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-force- resisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6Sa. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.3) TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS:The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.4) No foundations are present. High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Moderate Seismicity) Foundation Configuration Geologic Site Hazards C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-4 W1 & W1a (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Table 17-4. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types W1 and W1a Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1) No shearwalls are present. SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1): Structural panel sheathing 1,000 lb/ft Diagonal sheathing 700 lb/ft Straight sheathing 100 lb/ft All other conditions 100 lb/ft No shearwalls are present. STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.5. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.2) Only one story. HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-1. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.6. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.3) CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.4) No cripple walls. OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.8. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.5) WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) There is no foundation. Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System Connections C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-4 W1 & W1a (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Table 17-4. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types W1 and W1a Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) Wood grade beams sit on the soil. GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1) None present by obsevation WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 6 ft or less with proper edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) None present by observation DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1) ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1) STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) No wood diphragms present. DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft and shall have aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Connections Diaphragms C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A UDR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 Seismic Hazard (Tier 1) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS ASCE 41-17 §2.4 Site Coordinates Latitude =37.3874 deg White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment Longitude =-122.2781 deg San Mateo County, California Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters ASCE 41-17 §2.4.1.4 Site Class =C Site Soil Classification SS =0.842 g Mapped Short-period Spectral Response Acceleration S1 =0.307 g Mapped 1-sec period Spectral Response Acceleration SXS =0.980 g Short-period Spectral Response Acceleration at BSE-1E SX1 =0.612 g 1-sec period Spectral Response Acceleration at BSE-1E SEISMIC FORCE ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2 Building Properties Type N/S =W1 Building Type in North-South Direction ASCE 41-17 Table 3-1 Type E/W =W1 Building Type in East-West Direction ASCE 41-17 Table 3-1 Height, hn =25.00 ft Height above base to roof level Stories =1 Number of stories Weight N/S =118.0 k Seismic Weight of Building in North-South Direction Weight E/W =118.0 k Seismic Weight of Building in East-West Direction Building Period ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2.4 North-South Direction: Ct =0.02 Period Adjustment Factor β =0.75 Empirical Fundamental Period Adjustment Factor T =0.224 sec Fundamental Period =C t *h n β East-West Direction: Ct =0.02 Period Adjustment Factor β =0.75 Empirical Fundamental Period Adjustment Factor T =0.224 sec Fundamental Period =C t *h n β Pseudo-Seismic Force ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2.1 North-South Direction: Sa =0.98 g Spectral Response Acceleration =S x1 /T < S xs C =1.30 Modification Factor Table 4-8 V =1.27 *W Pseudo-Seismic Force in Terms of Weight =C*Sa*W V =150.3 k Pseudo-Seismic Force East-West Direction: Sa =0.98 g Spectral Response Acceleration =S x1 /T < S xs C =1.30 Modification Factor Table 4-8 V =1.27 *W Pseudo-Seismic Force in Terms of Weight =C*Sa*W V =150.3 k Pseudo-Seismic Force DR A F T Attachment 1 EXHIBIT C Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers DR A F T Attachment 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WHITE BARN STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for ZFA Structural Engineers 1390 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Carlos, California 94070 October 2019 Project No. 4907-2 DR A F T Attachment 1 October 4, 2019 4907-2 ZFA Structural Engineers 1390 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Carlos, California 94070 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION WHITE BARN MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Attention: Mr. Steve Patton, P.E. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the structural stabilization of the White Barn located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Preserve in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County near Woodside, California. The accompanying report summarizes the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, and presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. We refer you to the text of our report for specific recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions or comments concerning the findings or recommendations from our investigation, please call. Very truly yours, ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucas J. Ottoboni, P.E. Glenn A. Romig, P.E., G.E. Copies: Addressee (1 + via email) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (via email) Attn: Ms. Tanisha Werner GAR:LO:wfz:pf 1390 El Camino Real, Second Floor | San Carlos, CA 94070 | (650) 591-5224 | www.romigengineers.com DR A F T Attachment 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION – WHITE BARN MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1390 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070 PREPARED BY: ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. 1390 EL CAMINO REAL, SECOND FLOOR SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070 OCTOBER 2019 DR A F T Attachment 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Letter of transmittal Title Page TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 Project Description ................................................................................................1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................1 Limitations .............................................................................................................2 SITE EXPLORATION AND RECONNAISSANCE ...................................................2 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................3 Subsurface Conditions ...........................................................................................3 Ground Water ........................................................................................................4 GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................4 Faulting and Seismicity .........................................................................................5 Table 1. Earthquake Magnitudes and Historical Earthquakes .....................5 Earthquake Design Parameters ..............................................................................6 Table 2. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ...............................................6 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................7 FOUNDATIONS ...........................................................................................................8 Spread Footing Foundations ..................................................................................8 Lateral Loads .........................................................................................................9 Settlement ..............................................................................................................9 SLABS-ON-GRADE .....................................................................................................9 General Slab Considerations .................................................................................9 Exterior Flatwork .................................................................................................10 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................10 Clearing and Subgrade Preparation .....................................................................10 Material for Fill ...................................................................................................10 Compaction ..........................................................................................................11 Table 3. Compaction Recommendations ...................................................11 Temporary Slopes and Excavations ....................................................................11 Subdrain System ..................................................................................................12 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................12 Finished Slopes ....................................................................................................13 FUTURE SERVICES ..................................................................................................13 Plan Review .........................................................................................................13 Construction Observation and Testing ................................................................13 DR A F T Attachment 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) REFERENCES FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN FIGURE 3 - VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 4 - REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION Figure A-1 - Key to Exploratory Boring Logs Figure A-2 - Key to Bedrock Descriptions Exploratory Boring Logs EB-1 and EB-2 APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS Figure B-1 - Plasticity Chart DR A F T Attachment 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION – WHITE BARN MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed structural stabilization of the White Barn located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Preserve in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County near Woodside, California. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. Project Description The project consists of improving or abandoning the White Barn structure in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Preserve. Since the options to abandon the structure will not require engineering solutions, those options have not been addressed in our report. If improved, the existing structure will either be stabilized to allow for exterior viewing only or the existing structure will be retrofitted to become storage space for district use. Scope of Work The scope of our work for this investigation was presented in our agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers, dated June 25, 2019. In order to accomplish our investigation, we performed the following work. • Review of geologic, geotechnical, and seismic conditions in the vicinity of the site. • Subsurface exploration consisting of drilling and logging two exploratory borings near the barn. • Laboratory testing of selected samples to aid in soil classification and to help evaluate the engineering properties of the soil and bedrock encountered at the site. DR A F T Attachment 1 " Engineering analysis and evaluation of surface and subsurface data to develop earthwork guidelines and foundation design criteria for the project. " Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of ZFA Structural Engineers for specific application to developing geotechnical design criteria for the proposed structural stabilization of the White Barn located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Preserve in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County near Woodside, California. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, for the services performed for this project. Our services have been performed in accordance with the geotechnical engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. This report was prepared to provide engineering opinions and recommendations only. In the event there are any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project, or if any future improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should not be considered valid unless: 1) the project changes are reviewed by us, and; 2) the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are modified or verified in writing. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation; the currently planned improvements; review of readily available reports relevant to the site conditions; and laboratory test results. In addition, it should be recognized that certain limitations are inherent in the evaluation of subsurface conditions, and that certain conditions may not be detected during an investigation of this type. Changes in the information or data gained from any of these sources could result in changes in our conclusions or recommendations. If such changes occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in light of those changes. SITE EXPLORATION AND RECONNAISSANCE Site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration were performed on September 5, 2019. Subsurface exploration was performed using portable Minuteman drilling and sampling equipment. Two exploratory borings were advanced to sampler refusal conditions at depths of approximately 7.4 and 11.5 feet. The locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The boring logs and the results of our laboratory tests performed on samples collected during our investigation are attached in Appendices A and B, respectively. DR A F T Attachment 1 Surface Conditions The site is located within the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve along the south side of Kebet Ridge Road/Allen Road. At the time of our investigation, the site was occupied by a wood barn which had vertical wood exterior siding. The area immediately surrounding the barn was vegetated with native grasses. The barn was situated near the top of a ridge(s) that extended to the northwest and southeast in an area that sloped gently to the southwest towards the top/start of a natural drainage. The natural drainage was vegetated with shrubs and small trees and was located about 20 feet from the south side of the barn. The drainage extended and served the hillside areas to the west of the barn. At the time of our preliminary site walk on February 7, 2019 (pre-proposal job walk which was performed prior to the start of our work under contract with the District), we noted that the ground within and around the drainage and area south of the barn was saturated. The slopes appeared to be moderately to steeply sloping further west of the barn. The barn appeared to be supported on wood foundations at the perimeter and interior which were in direct contact with the earth. The existing barn was generally in fair to poor condition (given its age and use as a barn) with some of the wood siding and wood flooring observed to be deteriorating. The barn was generally tilting in the downslope/south direction. Subsurface Conditions At the location of our Exploratory Boring EB-1, we encountered about 4 feet of very stiff sandy silt of low plasticity underlain by about 2 feet of residual soil which consisted of hard sandy lean clay of low plasticity. Beneath the residual soil, we encountered sandstone bedrock of the Butano Formation to sampler refusal conditions at a depth of about 11.5 feet. At Boring EB-2, we encountered very severely weathered sandstone to siltstone bedrock of the Butano Formation beginning at the ground surface and extending to sampler refusal conditions at a depth of about 8.4 feet. We note that the upper 4 feet of Boring EB-1, located near the natural drainage way, was comprised of silts with pinhole voids. Through visual observation and previous experience with similar materials, we note that there may be a potential for these soils to be collapsible if water is introduced, which is likely to occur near the swale (as was observed during our job walk during the wet season). This phenomenon and the potential impacts are discussed later in this report. DR A F T Attachment 1 A Liquid Limit of 28 and a Plasticity Index of 7 were measured on a sample of near- surface soil obtained from Boring EB-1. These test results indicate the surface and near- surface soils we encountered at the site have low plasticity and a low potential for expansion. A free-swell test performed on a sample of bedrock obtained in Boring EB-2 indicated a free swell value of 30 percent. This free-swell test result along with our experience suggests the bedrock tested has a low potential for expansion. Ground Water Free ground water was not encountered in the borings during our investigation. The borings were backfilled with grout immediately after drilling and sampling was completed; therefore, a stabilized ground water level was not obtained. Please be cautioned that fluctuations in the level of ground water can occur due to variations in rainfall, landscaping, underground drainage patterns, and other factors. It is also possible and perhaps even likely that perched ground water conditions could develop in the soils and near the surface of the bedrock during and after significant rainfall or due to landscape watering at the property and the upslope areas. GEOLOGIC SETTING We have briefly reviewed our local experience and the geologic literature pertinent to the general site area. The information reviewed indicates that the site is located in an area mapped as middle and lower Eocene aged Butano Sandstone, Tb (Brabb, Graymer and Jones, 2000). This unit is expected to consist of light gray to buff, very fine to very coarse grained arkosic sandstone in thin to very thick beds interbedded with dark gray to brown mudstone and shale. The geology of the site vicinity is shown on the Vicinity Geologic Map, Figure 3. The preliminary State Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Woodside Quadrangle (2018) prepared by the California Geological Survey indicates that the site is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to “Earthquake-Induced Landslides.” However, it appears that the mapping is associated with the steep slopes in the general site vicinity rather than the slopes in the immediate vicinity of the barn. In addition, we did not observe any obvious indications of slope instability immediately surrounding the white barn structure. The lot and immediate site vicinity are located in a moderately sloping hillside area at an elevation of approximately 2,160 feet above sea level, Figure 1. DR A F T Attachment 1 Faulting and Seismicity There are no mapped through-going faults within or adjacent to the site and the site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone), an area where the potential for fault rupture is considered probable. The closest active fault is the San Andreas fault, which is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the property. Thus, the likelihood of surface rupture occurring from active faulting at the site is low. The San Francisco Bay Area is an active seismic region. Earthquakes in the region result from strain energy constantly accumulating because of the northwestward movement of the Pacific Plate relative to the North American Plate. On average about 1.6-inches of movement occur per year. Historically, the Bay Area has experienced large, destructive earthquakes in 1838, 1868, 1906, and 1989. The faults considered most likely to produce large earthquakes in the area include the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Gregorio fault is located approximately 8.0 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults are located approximately 21 and 26 miles northeast of the site, respectively. These faults and significant earthquakes that have been documented in the Bay Area are listed in Table 1, and are shown on the Regional Fault and Seismicity Map, Figure 4. Table 1. Earthquake Magnitudes and Historical Earthquakes White Barn Structural Stabilization San Mateo County, California Maximum Historical Estimated Fault Magnitude (Mw) Earthquakes Magnitude San Andreas 7.9 1989 Loma Prieta 6.9 1906 San Francisco 7.9 1865 N. of 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake 6.5 1838 San Francisco-Peninsula Segment 6.8 1836 East of Monterey 6.5 Hayward 7.1 1868 Hayward 6.8 1858 Hayward 6.8 Calaveras 6.8 1984 Morgan Hill 6.2 1911 Morgan Hill 6.2 1897 Gilroy 6.3 San Gregorio 7.3 1926 Monterey Bay 6.1 DR A F T Attachment 1 In the future, the subject property will undoubtedly experience severe ground shaking during moderate and large magnitude earthquakes produced along the San Andreas fault or other active Bay Area fault zones. Using information from recent earthquakes, improved mapping of active faults, ground motion prediction modeling, and a new model for estimating earthquake probabilities, a panel of experts convened by the U.S.G.S. have concluded there is a 72 percent chance for at least one earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or larger in the Bay Area before 2043. The Hayward fault has the highest likelihood of an earthquake greater than or equal to magnitude 6.7 in the Bay Area, estimated at 33 percent, while the likelihood on the San Andreas and Calaveras faults is estimated at approximately 22 and 26 percent, respectively (Aagaard et al., 2016). Earthquake Design Parameters The State of California currently requires that buildings and structures be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions presented in the 2016 California Building Code and in ASCE 7-10, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.” Based on site geologic conditions and on information from our subsurface exploration at the site, the site may be classified as Site Class C, very dense soil and soft rock, in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10. Spectral Response Acceleration parameters and site coefficients may be taken directly from the U.S.G.S. website based on the longitude and latitude of the site. For site latitude (37.3777), longitude (-122.2798) and Site Class C, design parameters are presented on Table 2 on the following page. Table 2. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria White Barn Structural Stabilization San Mateo County, California Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Design Value Mapped Value for Short Period - SS 2.050 Mapped Value for 1-sec Period - S1 0.968 Site Coefficient - Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient - Fv 1.3 Adjusted for Site Class - SMS 2.050 Adjusted for Site Class - SM1 1.258 Value for Design Earthquake - SDS 1.367 Value for Design Earthquake - SD1 0.839 DR A F T Attachment 1 CONCLUSIONS From a geotechnical viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed structural stabilization of the white barn, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed during design and construction. Specific geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this report. The primary geotechnical concerns for the proposed project are the localized drainage swale located south of the barn, the presence of up to about 4 feet of potentially collapsible silt at the location of Boring EB-1 (near/within the drainage way), and the potential for severe ground shaking at the site due to moderate to large earthquakes in the area. In our opinion, the civil design should consider the flow path of the localized drainage way in relation to the existing structure, i.e. capturing surface and/or subsurface water at the upslope areas and re-routing to a suitable location along the downslope areas. Also, depending upon where the structures are situated and/or the conditions exposed during grading and foundation trenching, a subdrain or foundation drain along the upslope side may be beneficial. In addition, we note that thickness of the silty soils and/or the depth to bedrock appears to increase from the upslope side (bedrock at the surface) to the south side (4 to 6 feet from the surface). In order to reduce the potential impact on the proposed structures from differential settlement, we recommend that foundations extend beneath the silty soils and extend into competent residual soil or weathered bedrock. Since this could result in foundation excavations of about 4 feet deep in certain areas (or deeper depending on the location of the structures in relation to the swale), alternatively, deepened footing excavations could be backfilled with compacted fill or lean concrete cement slurry. Specific geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this report. Because subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations of our borings, and to observe that our recommendations are properly implemented, we recommend that we be retained to 1) review the project plans for conformance with our recommendations; and 2) observe and test during earthwork and foundation construction. DR A F T Attachment 1 FOUNDATIONS Spread Footing Foundations In our opinion, the barn may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footing foundations bearing in competent residual soil or weathered bedrock. The footings should have a width of at least 15 inches and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade, 15 inches below the crawl space grade, and at least 18 inches below the bottom of slab elevation, whichever is deeper. Lowest adjacent grade should be considered to be the lowest grade within 5 feet from the edge of the foundation. In addition, the footing excavations should extend below the silty soils and at least 6 inches into residual soil and/or bedrock, even if this requires a deeper embedment depth. As mentioned in the above sections, up to about 4 feet of firm near-surface soils were encountered during our subsurface exploration in Boring EB-1. If this requires footings to be excavated to a depth of about 4 to 5 feet, lean concrete or compacted fill may be placed at the deepened portion of the footing excavations. If compacted fill is used, we recommend that aggregate base rock or other granular soil be used and be compacted and tested per the earthwork guidelines of this report. Footings with at least these minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads with a one-third increase allowed when considering additional short-term wind or seismic loading. All footings located adjacent to utility lines should be embedded below a 1:1 plane extending up from the bottom edge of the utility trench. All continuous footings should be reinforced with top and bottom steel, to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. The bottom of all footing excavations should be cleaned of loose, soft, overly moist or collapsible soil and debris. A member of our staff should observe the excavations to confirm that they have at least the minimum recommended dimensions, are founded in competent residual soil or bedrock, and have been properly cleaned prior to placing concrete forms and reinforcing steel. If existing fill soil, colluvial soil, or disturbed bedrock is encountered at the foundation bearing depth, our field representative will require these materials to be removed and a deeper embedment depth before reinforcing steel is placed. DR A F T Attachment 1 Lateral Loads Lateral loads will be resisted by friction between the bottom of the spread footings/piers and the supporting subgrade. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be assumed for design. Lateral resistance may also be provided by passive soil pressure acting against foundations cast neat in footing excavations or backfilled with properly compacted structural fill. We recommend a passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot be used in design. The upper foot of passive soil resistance should be neglected where soil adjacent to the footing is not covered with a slab or pavement. Settlement Thirty-year differential settlement due to static loads is not expected to exceed 1-inch across the areas supported on new foundations, provided foundations are designed and constructed as recommended. SLABS-ON-GRADE General Slab Considerations To reduce the potential for movement of the slab subgrade, at least the upper 6 inches of subgrade soil should be scarified and compacted at a moisture content near the laboratory optimum. The native soil subgrade should be kept moist up until the time the non- expansive fill, crushed rock and vapor barrier, and/or aggregate base is placed. Slab subgrades and non-expansive fill should be prepared and compacted as recommended in the section of this report titled “Earthwork.” Overly soft or moist soils should be removed from slab-on-grade areas. Exterior flatwork and interior slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a layer of non-expansive fill as discussed below. The non-expansive fill should consist of aggregate base rock or a clayey soil with a plasticity index of 15 or less. Considering the potential for some differential movement of the surface and near-surface soils, we expect that reinforced slabs will perform better than unreinforced slabs. Consideration should be given to using a control joint spacing on the order of 2 feet in each direction for each inch of slab thickness. DR A F T Attachment 1 Exterior Flatwork Concrete walkways and exterior flatwork should be at least 4 inches thick and should be constructed on at least 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. To improved performance, exterior slabs-on-grade, such as for patios, may be constructed with a thickened edge to improve edge stiffness and to reduce the potential for water seepage under the edge of the slabs and into the underlying base and subgrade. In our opinion, the thickened edges should be at least 8 inches wide and ideally should extend at least 4 inches below the bottom of the underlying aggregate base layer. EARTHWORK Clearing and Subgrade Preparation All deleterious materials, such as designated existing foundations and retaining walls, slabs and utilities to be abandoned, surface fills, concrete, vegetation, roots, topsoil, etc., should be cleared from areas to be built on or paved. The actual stripping depth should be determined by a member of our staff at the time of construction. Excavations that extend below finish grade should be backfilled with structural fill that is water- conditioned, placed, and compacted as recommended in the section titled “Compaction.” After the site has been properly cleared, stripped, and excavated to the required grades, exposed soil surfaces in areas to receive structural fill or slabs-on-grade should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted as recommended for structural fill in the section titled "Compaction." Large fills are generally not desirable on a hillside site like this. However, if fills are to be constructed on natural slopes having an inclination steeper than 6 horizontal to 1 vertical, the fill should be benched, and a key excavated into the underlying bedrock, and subdrains installed if required by our field representative. If significant fills are required, we can evaluate their feasibility and provide benching criteria as necessary. Material for Fill All on-site soil containing less than 3 percent organic material by weight (ASTM D2974) is suitable for use as structural fill. However, structural fill placed at the site, should not contain rocks or pieces larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, and contain no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. Imported fill should have a plasticity index of less than 15 percent or be predominately granular. Our representative should approve import materials prior to their use on-site. DR A F T Attachment 1 Compaction Scarified soil surfaces and all structural fill should be compacted in uniform lifts no thicker than 8 inches in pre-compacted thickness, and should be water conditioned and compacted as recommended for structural fill on Table 3. The relative compaction and moisture content recommended in Table 3 is based on ASTM Test D1557, latest edition. Table 3. Compaction Recommendations White Barn Structural Stabilization San Mateo County, California Relative Compaction* Moisture Content* General • Scarified subgrade in areas 90 percent Above optimum to receive structural fill. • Structural fill composed 90 percent Above optimum of fill or native soils. • Structural fill composed 90 percent Near optimum of non-expansive fill. • Structural fill below a 93 percent Near optimum depth of 4 feet. Pavement Areas • Upper 6-inches of soil 95 percent Above optimum below aggregate base. • Aggregate base. 95 percent Near optimum Utility Trench Backfill • On-site soil. 90 percent Above optimum • Imported sand 95 percent Near optimum * Relative to ASTM Test D1557, latest edition. Temporary Slopes and Excavations The contractor should be responsible for the design and construction of all temporary slopes and any required shoring. Shoring and bracing should be provided in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Because of the potential for variation of the on-site soils, field modification of temporary cut slopes may be required. Unstable materials encountered on slopes during and after excavation should be trimmed off even if this requires cutting the slopes back to a flatter inclination. DR A F T Attachment 1 Protection of structures near cuts should also be the responsibility of the contractor. In our experience, a preconstruction survey is generally performed to document existing conditions prior to construction, with intermittent monitoring of the structures during construction. Subdrain System To reduce the potential for water intrusion beneath the barn, subdrains could be installed around the upslope sides of the structure. If installed, the subdrains should extend to at least 3 to 4 feet deep from current site grades and should be located at least 2 feet from the edge of the barn. The subdrains should consist of a 12-inch width of free-draining crushed rock wrapped in an approved filter fabric or Class 2 Permeable Material. Four- inch diameter rigid plastic pipe (schedule 40 PVC, SDR 3 or equal) should be placed with perforations down on a 4-inch thick bed of crushed rock. The subdrain rock should be continued up to within about 12 to 18 inches of finished grade. Water collected in the subdrain system should be discharged to a suitable discharge location (such as the natural swale south of the barn). In addition, cleanouts should be provided as needed. Surface Drainage Finished grades should be designed to prevent ponding of water and to direct surface water runoff away from foundations, and edges of slabs and pavements, and toward suitable collection and discharge facilities. Slopes of at least 2 percent are recommended for flatwork and pavement areas with 5 percent preferred in landscape areas within 8 feet of the structures, where possible. At a minimum, splash blocks should be provided at the discharge ends of roof downspouts to carry water away from perimeter foundations. Preferably, roof downspout water should be collected in a closed pipe system that is routed to a storm drain system or other suitable location. Drainage facilities should be observed to verify that they are adequate and that no adjustments need to be made, especially during the first two years following construction. We recommend preparing an as-built plan showing the locations of surface and subsurface drain lines and clean-outs. The drainage facilities should be periodically checked to verify that they are continuing to function properly. It is likely the drainage facilities will need to be periodically cleaned of silt and debris that may build up in the lines. DR A F T Attachment 1 Finished Slopes We recommend that finished slopes be cut or filled to an inclination no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Exposed slopes may be subject to minor sloughing and erosion that may require periodic maintenance. We recommend that all slopes and soil surfaces disturbed during construction be planted with erosion-resistant vegetation. FUTURE SERVICES Plan Review Romig Engineers should review the completed grading and foundation plans for conformance with the recommendations presented in this report. We should be provided with these plans as soon as possible upon their completion in order to limit the potential for delays in the permitting process that might otherwise be attributed to our review process. The County will require a “clean” geotechnical plan review letter prior to their review and acceptance of the plans. Since our plan reviews often result in recommendations for modification of the plans, our generation of a “clean” review letter often requires two iterations. At a minimum, we recommend the following note be added to the plans: “Earthwork, slab subgrade and non-expansive fill preparation, foundation and slab construction, utility trench backfilling, subdrain construction (if selected), site drainage and grading should be performed in accordance with the geotechnical report prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated October 4, 2019. Romig Engineers should be notified at least 48 hours in advance of any earthwork or foundation construction and should observe and test during earthwork and foundation construction as recommended in the geotechnical report.” Construction Observation and Testing All earthwork and foundation construction should be observed and tested by us to 1) establish that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design; 2) observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations; and 3) allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations in this report are based on a limited number of borings. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations are exposed during construction, it will be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations.      DR A F T Attachment 1 REFERENCES Aagaard, B.T., Blair, J.L., Boatwright, J., Garcia, S.H., Harris, R.A., Michael, A.J., Schwartz, D.P., and DiLeo, J.S., 2016, Earthquake outlook for the San Francisco Bay region 2014–2043 (ver. 1.1, August 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2016–3020, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20163020. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-10. Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 2000, Geology of the Palo Alto 30 x 30 Minute Quadrangle, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2332. California Building Standards Commission, and International Code Council, 2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), 1994, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. California Geological Survey, 2019, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Woodside 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 129. U.S.G.S., 2018, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, Earthquake Hazards Program, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.      DR A F T Attachment 1 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet Base is United States Geological Survey Palo Alto 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, dated 1997. VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 SITE DR A F T Attachment 1 LEGEND EB-2 Approximate Locations of Exploratory Borings. Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 60 feet. Base is aerial photograph, retrieved from Google Earth. SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 EB-1 EB-2 KEBET RIDGE ROAD/ ALLEN ROAD DR A F T Attachment 1 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Butano Formation Geologic Contact - dashed where approximate, dotted where inferred. Lambert Shale Mindego Basalt Strike and dip of bedding Whiskey Hill Formation Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet Base is Geologic Map of Palo Alto 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle (Brabb, Graymer, and Jones, 2000). VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 SITE MAP LEGEND Tb Tla Tw Tb Tla Tmb Tw DR A F T Attachment 1 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Earthquakes with M5+ from 1900 to 1980, M2.5+ from 1980 to January 2015. Faults with activity in last 15,000 years. Based on data sources from Northern California Earthquake Data Center and USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, accessed May 2015. REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP FIGURE 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 SITE Magnitude Year 0 3 6 12 milesDR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The soils and bedrock encountered during drilling were logged by our representative and samples were obtained at depths appropriate to the investigation. The samples were taken to our laboratory where they were examined and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The logs of our borings, as well as a summary of the soil classification system (Figure A-1) and bedrock descriptions (Figure A-2) used on the logs, are attached. Several tests were performed in the field during drilling. The standard penetration test resistance was determined by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall and recording the blows required to drive the 2-inch (outside diameter) sampler 18 inches. The standard penetration test (SPT) resistance is the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches and is recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate depths. Soil samples were also collected using 2.5-inch and 3.0-inch O.D. drive samplers. The blow counts shown on the logs for these larger diameter samplers do not represent SPT values and have not been corrected in any way. The locations of the borings were established by pacing using the satellite imagery retrieved from Google Earth on September 30, 2019. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The boring logs and related information depict our interpretation of subsurface conditions only at the specific location and time indicated. Subsurface conditions and ground water levels at other locations may differ from conditions at the locations where sampling was conducted. The passage of time may also result in changes in the subsurface conditions.      DR A F T Attachment 1 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SOIL TYPE CLEAN GRAVEL GW Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. COARSE GRAVEL (< 5% Fines) GP Poorly graded gravel or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. GRAINED GRAVEL with GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. SOILS FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. (< 50 % Fines)CLEAN SAND SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SAND (< 5% Fines) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. SAND SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. WITH FINES SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, with slight plasticity. FINE SILT AND CLAY CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, lean clays. GRAINED Liquid limit < 50%OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. SOILS MH Inorganic silt, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soil. (> 50 % Fines)SILT AND CLAY CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Liquid limit > 50%OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. BEDROCK BR Weathered bedrock. RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SAND & GRAVEL BLOWS/FOOT* SILT & CLAY STRENGTH^BLOWS/FOOT* VERY LOOSE 0 to 4 VERY SOFT 0 to 0.25 0 to 2 LOOSE 4 to 10 SOFT 0.25 to 0.5 2 to 4 MEDIUM DENSE 10 to 30 FIRM 0.5 to 1 4 to 8 DENSE 30 to 50 STIFF 1 to 2 8 to 16 VERY DENSE OVER 50 VERY STIFF 2 to 4 16 to 32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT & CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12 "3"0.75"4 10 40 200 SIEVE OPENINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System; fines refer to soil passing a No. 200 sieve. * Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance, using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler; blow counts not corrected for larger diameter samplers. ^ Unconfined Compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. as estimated by SPT resistance, field and laboratory tests, and/or visual observation. KEY TO SAMPLERS z Modified California Sampler (3-inch O.D.) y Mid-size Sampler (2.5-inch O.D.) x Standard Penetration Test Sampler (2-inch O.D.) KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS FIGURE A-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 SECONDARY DIVISIONS PRIMARY DIVISIONS DR A F T Attachment 1 Fresh Moderately Severe Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks, slight staining. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.all feldspars dull and discolored and majority show kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist's pick. Rock goes "clunk" when struck. Very Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may Severe show thin clay coatings, crystals in broken face All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock "fabric" clear show bright. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.and evident, but reduced in strength to strong soil. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of Slight strong rock usually left. Rock generally fresh, joints stained, and discoloration extends into rock up to 1 inch. Joints may contain clay. Very Severe In granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar crystals are All rock except quartz discolored and stained. Rock "fabric" dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer.discernible, but mass effectively reduced to "soil" with only fragments of strong rock remaining. Moderate Significant portions of rock show discoloration and Complete weathering effects. In granitoid rocks, most feldspars Rock reduced to "soil". Rock fabric not discernible or discernible are dull and discolored; some are clayey. Rock has dull only in small scattered locations. Quartz may be present as dikes sound under hammer and shows significant loss of or stringers. strength as compared with fresh rock. Very hard Medium Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Hand Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 inch deep by firm pressure on knife specimens requires several hard blows of geologist's.or pick point. Can be excavated in small chips to pieces about 1 inch maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologist's pick. Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty.Soft Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be specimen.excavated in chips to pieces several inches in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be brocken by finger pressure. Moderately Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves Very Soft to 1/4 inch deep can be excavated by hard blow of point Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of of a geologist's pick. Hard specimen can be detached pick. Pieces 1 inch or more in thickness can be broken with finger by moderate blow.pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail. JOINT BEDDING AND FOLIATION SPACING ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATOR (RQD) Spacing Joints Bedding and Foliation RQD, as a percentage Descriptor Less than 2 in.Very Close Very Thin Exceeding 90 Excellent 2 in. to 1 ft.Close Thin 90 to 75 Good 1 ft. to 3 ft.Moderately Close Medium 75 to 50 Fair 3 ft. to 10 ft.Wide Thick 50 to 25 Poor More than 10 ft.Very Wide Very Thick Less than 25 Very Poor KEY TO BEDROCK DESCRIPTIONS FIGURE A-2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 WEATHERING HARDNESS DR A F T Attachment 1 DRILL TYPE: Minuteman with 3-1/4" Continuous Flight Auger LOGGED BY: RL DEPTH TO GROUND WATER: Not Encountered SURFACE ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: 09/05/19 CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION SO I L C O N S I S T E N C Y / DE N S I T Y o r R O C K HA R D N E S S Q ( F i g u r e A - 2 ) SO I L T Y P E SO I L S Y M B O L DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E I N T E R V A L PE N . R E S I S T A N C E ( B l o w s / f t ) WA T E R C O N T E N T ( % ) SH E A R S T R E N G T H ( T S F ) * UN C O N F I N . C O M P . ( T S F ) * ML 0 z z z 19 12 z z z n 19 14 z CL y 5 y y 38 22 y BR y y y 47 20 y x x x 32 16 10 x x x x 50/6"15 15 20 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG EB-1 BORING EB-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types, the actual transition may be gradual. *Measured using Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer devices. Bottom of Boring at 11.5 Feet. Butano Formation: Brown, Sandstone, moist, fine grained sand, friable, severely weathered. Dark brown, Sandy Silt, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, low plasticity, some roots, pinholes observed. n Liquid Limit = 28, Plasticity Index = 7. Residual Soil: Brown, Sandy Lean Clay, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, low to moderate plasticity. Stiff Very Hard Soft to Hard DR A F T Attachment 1 DRILL TYPE: Minuteman with 3-1/4" Continuous Flight Auger LOGGED BY: RL DEPTH TO GROUND WATER: Not Encountered SURFACE ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: 09/05/19 CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION SO I L C O N S I S T E N C Y / DE N S I T Y o r R O C K HA R D N E S S Q ( F i g u r e A - 2 ) SO I L T Y P E SO I L S Y M B O L DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E I N T E R V A L PE N . R E S I S T A N C E ( B l o w s / f t ) WA T E R C O N T E N T ( % ) SH E A R S T R E N G T H ( T S F ) * UN C O N F I N . C O M P . ( T S F ) * BR 0 z z z 16 12 z z z s 81 20 z 50/5" y 5 y 50/6"15 x x x 55 18 x x 50/5"17 10 15 20 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG EB-2 BORING EB-2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 Butano Formation: Brown, Sandstone to Siltstone, moist, Medium fine grained, fractured, friable, severely weathered. s Free Swell = 13%. Bottom of Boring at 7.4 feet. Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types, the actual transition may be gradual. *Measured using Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer devices. DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS Samples collected during subsurface exploration were selected for tests to help evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the soils and bedrock that was encountered. The tests that were performed are briefly described below. The natural moisture content was determined in accordance with ASTM D2216 on nearly all of the samples recovered from the borings. This test determines the moisture content, representative of field conditions, at the time the samples were collected. The results are presented on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. The Atterberg Limits were determined on one sample of soil in accordance with ASTM D4318. The Atterberg Limits are the moisture content within which the soil is workable or plastic. The results of this test are presented in Figure B-1 and on the log of Boring EB-1 at the appropriate sample depth. A free swell test was performed on one sample of the weathered bedrock recovered from Boring EB-2. The result is presented on the boring log at the appropriate sample depth.      DR A F T Attachment 1 Passing USCS Chart Boring Sample Water Liquid Plasticity Liquidity No. 200 Soil Symbol Number Depth Content Limit Index Index Sieve Classification (feet)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent) EB-1 2-4 14 28 7 -100 ML PLASTICITY CHART FIGURE B-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 DR A F T Attachment 1 ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. 1390 El Camino Real, 2nd Floor San Carlos, California 94070 Phone: (650) 591-5224 www.romigengineers.com DR A F T Attachment 1 EXHIBIT D Asbestos and Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos & Lead Survey Three Buildings Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District August 20, 2019 Revised November 14, 2019 Terracon Project No. R1197192 Prepared for: ZFA Structural Engineers San Carlos, CA 94070 Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Emeryville, CADR A F T Attachment 1 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 ASBESTOS AND LEAD survey ................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Visual Assessment of Suspect ACM ............................................................................... 3 2.2 Bulk Sampling Suspect ACM .......................................................................................... 3 2.3 Physical Assessment of Suspect ACM ............................................................................ 4 2.4 Sample Analysis of Suspect ACM ................................................................................... 4 2.5 Bulk Sampling of Lead Paint and Suspect Bulk Materials ................................................ 4 3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 5 3.1 Asbestos ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Lead-Containing Paints and Materials ............................................................................. 6 4.0 Regulatory Summary ................................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Asbestos ........................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 Lead ............................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 LIMITATIONS/GENERAL COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 8 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX A IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BY HOMOGENEOUS AREA (HA) APPENDIX B ASBESTOS SAMPLE SUMMARY APPENDIX C ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA APPENDIX D LEAD ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA APPENDIX E LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX G SAMPLE LOCATION DRAWINGSDR A F T Attachment 1 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted a pre-renovation asbestos and lead survey of three buildings, the Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin near La Honda, California. We understand this asbestos survey was requested in support of the planned renovation of the building(s). The purpose of this survey was to sample and identify suspect materials and provide information regarding the identity, location, condition, and approximate quantities of asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead containing paint, mercury containing switches and light fixtures, PCB containing lighting ballasts and ozone depleting coolants. The survey was performed on July 2, 2019 by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors in general accordance with the sampling protocols established in United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 763 Subpart E 763, known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, (AHERA). Terracon collected 89 bulk samples from homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. Terracon collected seventy (70) samples from twenty-two (22) homogeneous area of suspected asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Laboratory analysis reported that seven (7) samples and two (2) materials contain asbestos. Terracon collected two (2) paint chip samples from the La Honda Log cabin, one (1) from the La Honda White Barn, and six (6) from the Beatty House. Analysis of the paint samples reported that all of paint-chip samples had detectable concentrations of lead. One (1) sample from the La Honda White Barn and three (3) samples from the Beatty House had lead concentrations in excess of the California Department of Public Health definition of Lead-Based Paint. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Reliable ■Responsive ■Resourceful ii HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SURVEY ZFA - Three Buildings Pre-Renovation Survey Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Terracon Project No. R1197192 43697 1.0 INTRODUCTION Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) was contracted by ZFA Structural Engineers (ZFA) to conduct a hazardous materials survey of three buildings owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, including the Beatty House near Los Gatos and the La Honda White Barn and La Honda Log Cabin near La Honda, California. The survey was conducted on July 2, 2019 by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors. The survey included the interior and exterior building components. Homogeneous areas of suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-containing paints, PCB containing lighting ballasts, mercury containing thermostats, and mercury containing lighting tubes were visually identified and documented. Although reasonable effort was made to survey accessible suspect materials, additional suspect but un- sampled materials could be located in walls, in voids or in other concealed areas. 1.1 Scope of Work The scope of the survey was as follows: n Inspect the subject buildings for the presence of suspect ACMs, lead-containing paint, mercury-containing products, polychlorinated biphenyl lighting ballasts. n Collect samples of suspect ACMs following a National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) protocol for sample collection for a demolition survey. n Asbestos bulk samples will be analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM) in accordance with the EPA’s July 1993 method for the determination of asbestos in bulk building materials - EPA 600/R-93/116. n Collect bulk paint chip samples of primary painted surfaces and other materials suspected to be lead containing. Bulk samples will be analyzed at an accredited laboratory by Flame Atomic Absorption (AA) for Total Lead reported in parts per million (ppm). n Submit written report including analytical results, regulatory requirements and conclusions. The subject spaces included in the scope of were limited to: n The interior and exterior of the Beatty House, n The interior and exterior of the La Honda Log Cabin, and DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 3 n The interior and exterior of the La Honda White Barn. 2.0 ASBESTOS AND LEAD SURVEY The survey was conducted by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors. Mike Harrington is certified by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) as a Site Surveillance Technician (SST # 01-3017). Mike Reed is also certified by Cal/OSHA (SST # 08- 4464). The survey was managed and supervised by Michael Benefield. Mr. Benefield is certified by Cal/OSHA as a Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC # 06-3938). Terracon’s project personnel’s certifications can be found in Appendix E of this report. The survey was conducted in general accordance with the sampling protocols outlined in United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 763 Subpart E 763, known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). Samples were delivered to an accredited laboratory for analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). 2.1 Visual Assessment of Suspect ACM Survey activities were initiated with visual observation of the interior and exterior of the building to identify homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. A homogeneous area (HA) consists of building materials that appear similar throughout in terms of color and texture with consideration given to the date of application. Interior assessment was conducted in visually accessible areas of the building proposed for demolition. Terracon typically investigated for flooring beneath carpeting by lifting small corner sections of carpet. If additional flooring was seen, they have been identified in the report. If flooring was not seen at corners under the carpet, it does not imply that there are no tiles beneath the carpeted floor. Terracon inspected the walls in multiple places throughout the building and did not observe additional coverings/layers except where noted in this report, but there may be areas of additional suspect material present within the building walls not investigated. Terracon did not inspect in concealed wall cavities or in sub grade areas. 2.2 Bulk Sampling Suspect ACM Bulk samples were collected of homogeneous suspect materials that were within the area covered by the scope of work. A homogeneous material is defined as a surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material that is uniform in color, texture and age of construction. Examples of homogeneous materials include: n Pipe insulation produced by the same manufacturer and installed during the same time period; n Resilient flooring of identical color and pattern; DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 4 n Troweled on surfacing materials located in contiguous areas. The buildings were visually inspected for the presence of suspect materials. As materials were identified, bulk samples were obtained with the aid of a coring device or other hand tool and placed into individual sampling bags. Each sample was given a discreet identification number and recorded on field notes as well as chain of custody forms. Refer to accompanying tables and appendices for details on material sample locations and results. 2.3 Physical Assessment of Suspect ACM A physical assessment of each homogeneous area (HA) of suspect ACM was conducted to assess the friability and condition of the materials. A friable material is defined by the USEPA as a material which can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry. Friability was assessed by physically touching suspect materials. 2.4 Sample Analysis of Suspect ACM Bulk samples of suspect ACM were analyzed by EM Lab P&K of Phoenix, AZ. EML is accredited under the National Institute of Standards and Technology's National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Analysis was conducted by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) in accordance with EPA 600/R92-116 (1993) method. Asbestos content was determined by visual estimation. The lower quantitation limit of PLM is recognized to be 1%. To reliably determine that a material in which asbestos was detected by PLM, contains less than 1% asbestos the samples must be re-analyzed by PLM Point Count. In accordance with EPA assessment criteria, if a single sample of a homogeneous material tests positive for asbestos, all areas of that homogeneous material are considered to be asbestos-containing. 2.5 Bulk Sampling of Lead Paint and Suspect Bulk Materials Paint chip and bulk samples were collected using a hand scraper or chisel and were placed into individual plastic sampling containers. Each sample was provided a discreet sample number, which was recorded on a chain of custody form. The samples were transported under chain of custody procedures to J3 Resources of Pasadena, TX. Please refer to Table III for details on sample locations and sample results. All paint and ceramic tile glazing samples were analyzed for lead content using the Flame Atomic Absorption spectroscopy in accordance to EPA Method SW846-7420. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 5 3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Asbestos The following asbestos-containing materials were identified as a result of laboratory analysis or assumed to be asbestos containing: HM # / Material Description General Material Location NESHAP Category Asbestos Type Estimated Quantity Tan vinyl sheet flooring Beatty House: Living room Friable – RACM 25% Chrysotile 360 Wallboard joint compound Beatty House: Throughout, walls and ceilings NA 2% Chrysotile in the joint compound, and 0.5% chrysotile composite 3,700 NA = Not Applicable, CH = Chrysotile, lf = linear feet, sf = square feet, RACM = Regulated asbestos containing material (friable), Cat. I = Non- friable (note ACM must be reclassified as a RACM if rendered friable during removal), Cat. II = Category II Non-friable (note ACM must be reclassified as a RACM if rendered friable during removal), sf = square feet, lf = linear feet No asbestos was detected in any of the samples collected in the La Honda Log Cabin or in the La Honda White Barn. No identified materials were unable to be sampled and assumed to contain asbestos in any of the three buildings. Vinyl sheet flooring in the Beatty House Living Room is friable ACM. Friable ACM is Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM) and must be removed prior to start of demolition or renovation activities. The wallboard system in the Beatty House has ACM joint compound. Composite analysis of the joint compound and the wallboard by PLM point count reported that the composite contained less than 1% asbestos. This material is not an ACM as defined by NESHAP and BAAQMD. However, Cal/OSHA does not allow composite analysis, so the joint compound is an ACM as defined by Cal/OSHA. All removal of ACM materials including materials non-friable materials left in the building must be conducted by a licensed and registered asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with 8CCR1529 and the BAAQMD Regulation 11 Rule 2. If additional suspect materials that have not been characterized in this report are discovered during demolition, these materials must be assumed to contain asbestos and be treated accordingly until proven otherwise by appropriate sampling and laboratory analysis. A summary of the classification, condition and approximate quantity of identified ACM is presented in Appendix A. The summary of sample locations is presented in Appendix B. Laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix C. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 6 3.2 Lead-Containing Paints and Materials Nine (9) painted surfaces were sampled and analyzed for potential lead content. Nine (9) of the painted surfaces were found to contain lead content above the laboratory detection limit. Four (4) painted surfaces were found to contain lead in concentrations exceeding 5,000 parts per million. The laboratory results for lead testing are summarized in Table III below. TABLE III LEAD SAMPLE RESULTS Sample Number Material Description and Location Results mg/kg (ppm)Le a d - Co n t a i n i n g Le a d - Ba s e d Pa i n t L-01 La Honda Log Cabin: Green paint on wood floor in the Log Cabin Kitchen 4,200 Y N L-02 La Honda Log Cabin:White paint on glass and wood on the Log Cabin south exterior 780 Y N L-03 La Honda White Barn:48,000 Y Y L-04 Beatty House:Brown paint on wood exterior wall 1,500 Y N L-05 Beatty House:White paint on wood window frame 1,800 Y N L-06 Beatty House: White paint on wallboard wall in the living room 18,000 Y Y L-07 Beatty House: Brown paint on wood door frame between living room and kitchen 12,000 Y Y L-08 Beatty House: White paint on wood door frame in the kitchen 460 Y N L-09 Beatty House: White paint on glass and window frame on the exterior 43,000 Y Y mg/kg= Milligram per kilogram, ppm = parts per million Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1). Disturbance of lead-based paints must be conducted in accordance with the EPA RRP rule. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 7 4.0 REGULATORY SUMMARY 4.1 Asbestos Disturbance of materials containing asbestos is regulated by Cal-OSHA in the Asbestos in Construction Industry Standard, 8 CCR 1529. Some of the key requirements are summarized below. n Any individual who contracts to provide health and safety services relating to materials containing more than 0.1% asbestos must be certified by Cal-OSHA as either a Certified Asbestos Consultant or a Site Surveillance Technician. The activities that require certification include: conducting asbestos surveys; writing work plans or specifications for abatement; monitoring the work of abatement contractors; collecting air samples; and determining if the work area is safe for re- occupancy by non-asbestos workers. Regulation: Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (q)(1). n If more than 100 square feet of materials that contain greater than 0.1% asbestos will be disturbed, the materials must be removed by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor. Regulation: Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (r). n ACMs that are classified by OSHA as thermal system insulation/surfacing materials are present. Removal of these materials is considered a Class I activity according to Cal-OSHA regulations. Work practices and engineering controls for Class I work are specified in Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (g) (4-6). n ACMs that are classified by OSHA as other/miscellaneous materials are present. Removal of these materials is considered a Class II activity according to Cal-OSHA regulations. Work practices and engineering controls for Class II work are specified in Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (g) (7-8). n Removal of friable ACMs greater than 100 square feet or 100 linear feet requires notification of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ten (10) working days in advance of intended removal. n Friable ACM waste must be manifested, transported, and disposed of as hazardous waste in accordance with the Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) and under a Waste Shipment Record as required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. DTSC regulates disposal of asbestos waste. DTSC issues U.S. EPA hazardous waste generator identification numbers. 4.2 Lead Disturbing materials containing any detectable concentration of lead either through repair, maintenance, renovation or demolition activities triggers several regulations enforced by such agencies as OSHA (worker protection), EPA (environmental exposure, transportation and DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 8 disposal), and Department of Public Health (DPH). Some of the key requirements of the regulations are summarized below. n There are presently no federal, state or local regulations limiting the concentration of lead in public sector buildings, however several regulations established for the private sector as well as for government subsidized housing are used industry wide as guidelines for assessing exposure to lead. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has set a maximum limit of 90 ppm in paint used for residential purposes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires abatement of lead hazards involving paint in concentrations exceeding 5,000 ppm. n Disposal of all lead-containing materials is regulated at concentrations at or exceeding 1,000 ppm as stated in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 263 - Land Disposal Regulations and Title 22, Division 4 Environmental Health of the California Administrative Code. Lead containing materials that exceed 50 ppm must be additionally analyzed to determine possible waste disposal restrictions with respect to lead. n Federal OSHA and Cal-OSHA regulate all worker exposure during construction activities that impact lead-containing paint. Cal-OSHA enforces the Lead in Construction Standard in Title 8 CCR 1532.1. The scope covers construction work where employees may be exposed to lead during such activities as demolition, removal, surface preparation for re-painting, renovation, clean-up and routine maintenance. The OSHA specified method of compliance includes respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, housekeeping, hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, and training, among other requirements. 5.0 LIMITATIONS/GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon did not perform sampling which required demolition or destructive activities such as knocking holes in walls, dismantling of equipment or removal of protective coverings. Reasonable efforts to access suspect materials within known areas of restricted access (e.g., crawl spaces) were made; however, confined spaces or areas which may pose a health or safety risk to Terracon personnel were not sampled. Sampling did not include suspect materials which could not be safely reached with available ladders/man-lifts. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 9 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the survey results, Terracon concludes the following: n Asbestos was detected in various materials including vinyl floor tile and mastics, joint compound associated with drywall, thermal system insulation, ceramic tile mastic, sink undercoating, roof mastics, transite (asbestos cement) panels, metal roof cap sealant, and flashing sealant. n If additional suspect materials that have not been characterized as ACM or non- ACM in this report are discovered during demolition, these materials should be assumed to contain asbestos and be treated accordingly until proven otherwise by appropriate sampling and laboratory analysis. n Lead was detected above the laboratory detection limit on nine (9) various painted surfaces throughout the building. Two (2) of the painted surfaces had lead concentrations above 5,000 ppm, the threshold for designation of lead-based paint. This asbestos survey was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locale. The results, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are based on conditions observed during our survey of the building. The information contained in this report is relevant to the date on which this survey was performed and should not be relied upon to represent conditions at a later date. This report has been prepared on behalf of and exclusively for use by ZFA Structural Engineers for specific application to their project as discussed. This report is not a bidding document. Contractors or consultants reviewing this report must draw their own conclusions regarding further investigation or remediation deemed necessary. Terracon does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies, laboratories or other third parties supplying information which may have been used in the preparation of this report. No warranty, express or implied is made.DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX A ZFA Structural Engineers - Three Buildings Pre-Renovation Survey Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin, Near IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BY HOMOGENEOUS AREA (HA) HA No.Material Description Material Location NESHAP Classification % and Type Asbestos** Estimated Quantity* 201 Tan vinyl sheet flooring Beatty House: Living room Friable – RACM 25% Chrysotile 360 SF 204 Wallboard joint compound Beatty House: Throughout, walls and ceilings NA 2% Chrysotile in the joint compound, and 0.5% Chrysotile composite 3,700 SF *Estimated quantities are based on a cursory field evaluation, and actual quantities may vary significantly, especially if asbestos containing materials are present in hidden and/or inaccessible areas not evaluated as part of this survey. **%& Type Asbestos = this column contains both the analytical result of the sample with the highest concentration of asbestos detected in the samples that make up the HA and the types of asbestos identified. The materials listed in this table have been sampled and determined to contain asbestos in concentrations greater than 1%. When disturbed, various federal, state and local regulations may apply. These materials should be monitored for damage over time and repaired as necessary by appropriately trained personnel. Removal may be necessary before renovations and in most cases before a demolition. See Appendix B for a summary of samples collected. See Appendix C for detailed analytical results.DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX B ASBESTOS SAMPLE LOCATION SUMMARY DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity Log Cabin 1 1A Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected NA NA 1 1A Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 1 1B Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected 1 1B Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 1 1C Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected 1 1C Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 2 2A Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 2 2A Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Light Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Dark Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Orange Wood None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Light Brown Mastic None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Dark Brown Mastic None detected 3 3A Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected NA NA 3 3B Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected 3 3C Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected 4 4A Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected NA NA 4 4B Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected 4 4C Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected 5 5A Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected NA NA 5 5A Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 5 5B Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected 5 5B Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 5 5C Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected 5 5C Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 6 6A Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected NA NA 6 6A Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 6 6B Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected 6 6B Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 6 6C Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected 6 6C Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 7 7A Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected NA NA 7 7B Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected 7 7C Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected 8 8A Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected NA NA 8 8A Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected 8 8B Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected 8 8B Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected 8 8C Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected 8 8C Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 1 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 9 9A Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9A Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected 9 9B Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9B Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected 9 9C Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9C Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected Barn 100 100A Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;N Black Wiring Insulation None detected NA NA 100 100B Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Black Wiring Insulation None detected 100 100B Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Black Tar Insulator None detected 100 100C Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;S Black Wiring Insulation None detected Beatty House 200 200A Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected NA NA 200 200B Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected 200 200C Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Friable Class 2 360 SF 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected RACM 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 203 203A Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 203 203B Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 203 203C Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 2 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 204 204A Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall Gray Fibrous Material with Multilayered Paint None detected NA Class 2 3,700 SF 204 204A Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall White Drywall with Brown Paper and Multilayered Paint None detected 204 204B Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint None detected 204 204B Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Brown Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204C Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint None detected 204 204C Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Brown Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Tan Joint Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Brown/Green Paper None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Cream Tape None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Cream Tape None detected 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Cream Tape None detected 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Composite by PLM Point Count 0.5% Chrysotile 205 205A Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; West Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected NA NA 205 205B Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; Center Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected 205 205C Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; East Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected 206 206A Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; West Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected NA NA 206 206B Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; Center Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected 206 206C Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; East Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected 207 207A Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 207 207B Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 207 207C Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West White Mastic None detected 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Brown Fiberboard Flooring None detected 208 208B Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208B Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center White Mastic with Brown Fibrous Material None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East White Mastic None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Brown Fiberboard Flooring None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 3 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Tan Flooring None detected NA NA 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Tan Flooring None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Tan Flooring None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected NA NA 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Felt None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Felt None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Felt None detected 211 211A Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected NA NA 211 211B Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected 211 211C Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 4 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX C ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA DR A F T Attachment 1 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding: Project: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin EML ID: 2198987 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-08-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 1 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:27 Total Samples Analyzed:27 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:0 Location: 1A, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447612-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 1B, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447613-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 1C, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447614-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 2A, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447615-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Brown Mastic ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 2 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 2B, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447616-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Light Brown Mastic ND Dark Brown Mastic ND Orange Wood ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 2C, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447617-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Light Brown Mastic ND Dark Brown Mastic ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 3A, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447618-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 3B, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447619-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 3 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 3C, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447620-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4A, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447621-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4B, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447622-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4C, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447623-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 4 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 5A, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447624-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 5B, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447625-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 5C, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447626-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 6A, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447627-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 5 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 6B, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447628-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 6C, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447629-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 7A, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447630-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 7B, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447631-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 6 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 7C, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447632-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 8A, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447633-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 8B, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447634-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 8C, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447635-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 7 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 9A, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447636-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 9B, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447637-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 9C, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447638-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 8 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding: Project: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn EML ID: 2198983 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. REVISED REPORT Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-09-2019 and 07-10-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 1 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-10-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:3 Total Samples Analyzed:3 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:0 Location: 100A, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;N Lab ID-Version‡: 10447309-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 100B, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Lab ID-Version‡: 10447310-2 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Black Tar Insulator ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 100C, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;S Lab ID-Version‡: 10447311-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 2 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-10-2019 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". Location: 100B; Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Lab ID-Version‡: 10447310-2 Analysis Time revised. Sample Layers revised. EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 3 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding: Project: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd EML ID: 2198988 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-08-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 1 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:40 Total Samples Analyzed:40 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:7 Location: 200A, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447674-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 200B, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447675-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 200C, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447676-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 201A, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447677-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 2 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 201B, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447678-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 201C, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447679-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 202A, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447680-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 3 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 202B, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447681-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 4 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 202C, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447682-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 203A, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447683-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 203B, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447684-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 203C, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447685-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 5 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 204A, Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall Lab ID-Version‡: 10447686-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Fibrous Material with Multilayered Paint ND White Drywall with Brown Paper and Multilayered Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 10% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204B, Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447687-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint ND Brown Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204C, Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447688-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint ND Brown Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204D, Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447689-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Joint Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 10% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Comments:Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 6 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 204E, Wallboard Joint Compound; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447690-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Green Paper ND Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. Location: 204F, Wallboard Joint Compound; South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447691-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. Location: 204G, Wallboard Joint Compound; North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447692-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 7 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 205A, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447693-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 8 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 205B, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447694-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 205C, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447695-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 206A, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447696-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 206B, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447697-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 9 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 206C, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447698-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 207A, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447699-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 207B, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447700-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 207C, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447701-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 10 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 208A, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447702-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic ND Brown Fiberboard Flooring ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 208B, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447703-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic with Brown Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 208C, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447704-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic ND Brown Fiberboard Flooring ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 209A, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447705-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 11 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 209B, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447706-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 209C, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447707-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 210A, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Lab ID-Version‡: 10447708-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose 10% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 210B, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Lab ID-Version‡: 10447709-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose 10% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 12 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 210C, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447710-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 12% Glass Fibers 10% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 211A, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447711-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 211B, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447712-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 211C, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447713-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 13 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX D LEAD ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA DR A F T Attachment 1 Analysis Report Client: Project/Test Address: Eurofins EMLab P&K 7469 Whitepine Rd Telephone: 800.347.4010 Richmond, VA 23237 Environmental Hazards Services, L.L.C. 2199222 Client Number: 201676 Fax Number: 330-497-0772Laboratory Results Analyzed Date: Client Sample Number Lab Sample Number Pb (ug/g) ppm Lead Paint Chip 07/10/2019 07/09/2019 19-07-01313 Reported Date: Received Date: Report Number: 4101 Shuffel Street NW North Canton, OH 44720 Narrative ID 07/10/2019 Collection Location % Pb by Wt. Collection Date: L-119-07-01313-001 4200 0.42 L-219-07-01313-002 780 0.078 Tariq Mohammed QC Clerk Analysis Method:EPA SW846 7000B The HUD lead guidelines for lead paint chips are 0.50% by Weight, 5000 ppm, or 1.0 mg/cm². The Reporting Limit (RL) for samples prepared by ASTM E-1979-17 is 10.0 ug Total Pb. The RL for samples prepared by EPA SW846 3050B is 25.0 ug Total Pb. Paint chip area and results are calculated based on area measurements determined by the client. All internal quality control requirements associated with this batch were met, unless otherwise noted. LEGEND Pb= lead ug = microgram ppm = parts per million ug/g = micrograms per gram Wt. = weight Reviewed By Authorized Signatory: OH 10028Accreditation #: Preparation Method:ASTM E-1979-17 The condition of the samples analyzed was acceptable upon receipt per laboratory protocol unless otherwise noted on this report. Results represent the analysis of samples submitted by the client. Sample location, description, area, etc., was provided by the client. Results reported above in mg/cm3 are calculated based on area supplied by client. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written consent of the Environmental Hazards Service, L.L.C. ELLAP Accredtitation through AIHA-LAP, LLC (100420), NY ELAP #11714. Page 1of1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 JP191014468 3042679 8-Jul-2019 10-Jul-2019 10-Jul-2019 J3 Resources, Inc. 3113 Red Bluff Road Pasadena, Texas 77503 Phone: (713) 290-0223 – Fax: (832) 831-5669 j3resources.com Lead in Paint Performed by Flame AA – USEPA SW846 7420/3050B Project #:EMLab P&K J3 Order #: 48000 1501 W Knudsen Dr Phoenix, AZ 85027 Report Date: L-3 LEAD CONCENTRATION (%) Receipt Date: Analysis Date: Paint Chip 4.8% LEAD CONCENTRATION (mg/kg) Scott Ward, Ph.D. Lab Director Reporting Limit = 50.0 mg/kg N/A = Not Applicable Analyst:Korry Huddleston 2199099 This report relates only to the samples submitted. The analysis has been conducted according to the method(s) listed above. Blank corrections are not applied to data unless requested by the customer. This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed customer and shall not be reproduced except in full without written approval by J3 Resources, Inc. (J3). Unless otherwise noted, all quality control samples performed within specifications established by the laboratory. INS = Insufficient Sample Weight NS = Not Submitted Angela Hetherington SAMPLE ID PAINT COLOR Page 1 of 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 3042679 Per S.D./n.t. DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 Approved by: Operations Manager Joshua Cox Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding: Project: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd EML ID: 2199075 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. Due to the nature of the analyses performed, field blank correction of results is not applied. The results relate only to the samples as received. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Lead Analysis (sub-contracted): 07-09-2019 DR A F T Attachment 1 JP191014467 3042648 8-Jul-2019 9-Jul-2019 9-Jul-2019 This report relates only to the samples submitted. The analysis has been conducted according to the method(s) listed above. Blank corrections are not applied to data unless requested by the customer. This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed customer and shall not be reproduced except in full without written approval by J3 Resources, Inc. (J3). Unless otherwise noted, all quality control samples performed within specifications established by the laboratory. INS = Insufficient Sample Weight NS = Not Submitted Angela Hetherington SAMPLE ID PAINT COLOR 2199075 12000 1.2% 18000 1800 0.18% 1.8% L-5 Paint Chip L-6 Paint Chip L-7 Paint Chip L-8 Paint Chip L-9 Paint Chip 43000 4.3% 0.046%460 Scott Ward, Ph.D. Lab Director Reporting Limit = 50.0 mg/kg N/A = Not Applicable Analyst:Korry Huddleston 1500 1501 W Knudsen Dr Phoenix, AZ 85027 Report Date: L-4 LEAD CONCENTRATION (%) Receipt Date: Analysis Date: Paint Chip 0.15% LEAD CONCENTRATION (mg/kg) J3 Resources, Inc. 3113 Red Bluff Road Pasadena, Texas 77503 Phone: (713) 290-0223 – Fax: (832) 831-5669 j3resources.com Lead in Paint Performed by Flame AA – USEPA SW846 7420/3050B Project #:EMLab P&K J3 Order #: Page 1 of 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 3042648 Per D.H./n.t. DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX E LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 IN D I V I D U A L : C E R T I F I C A T E T Y P E : NU M B E R : EX P I R A T I O N D A T E : Le a d S a m p l i n g T e c h n i c i a n LR C - 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 5/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 0 Mi c h e a l R e e d ST A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DE P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C H E A L T H LE A D - R E L A T E D C O N S T R U C T I O N C E R T I F I C A T E Di s c l a i m e r : T h i s d o c u m e n t a l o n e s h o u l d n o t b e r e l i e d u p o n t o c o n f i r m c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a t u s . C o m p a r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s p h o t o a n d n a m e t o a n o t h e r v a l i d f o r m o f go v e r n m e n t i s s u e d p h o t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . V e r i f y t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a t u s b y s e a r c h i n g f o r L e a d - R e l a t e d C o n s t r u c t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l s a t ww w . c d p h . c a . g o v / p r o g r a m s / c l p p b o r c a l l i n g ( 8 0 0 ) 5 9 7 - L E A D . DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 1 La Honda Log Cabin Photo 2 La Honda White Barn DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 3 Beatty House Photo 4 Material 204 - ACM joint Compound on wallboard walls and ceilings in the Beatty House DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 5 Material 201 ACM vinyl sheet flooring in the Beatty House DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX G SAMPLE LOCATION DRAWINGS DR A F T Attachment 1 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:2 Beatty House La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 N 209B 209A 209C 204D 203A 203B 205C 203C 206A 208B 206B 204G 208C 206C 200A 205B 204A 205A 200C L-5 202A 202B 202C 204C 204E 204B 207A 207B 207C 210A, 210B, 210C L-6 201B 211A, 211B, 211C 201C L-7 208A L-8 201A 200B L-9 L-4DR A F T Attachment 1 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:2 Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 N BATH FIREPLACE KITCHEN 8C 6B 9C 3C 6C 7A, 7B, 7C 8A 3A L-2 4A 1A 1B 1C 4B 4C 2B 5A, 5B, 5C 2C 2A L-1 9A 9B 6A 8B 3B LIVING ROOM DR A F T Attachment 1 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:3 White Barn Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 Sample L-3 white paint on wood siding collected from exterior of barn Samples 100A, 100B, and 100C Black 1/8” wiring collected from interior of barnDR A F T Attachment 1 EXHIBIT E Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 1 of 29 Swaim Biological, Incorporated 4435 First Street PMB #312 Livermore, CA 94551 TO Matthew Chaney, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, Ca 94022 FROM Karen Swaim and Ryan Byrnes, Swaim Biological Incorporated 4435 First Street Livermore, CA 94551 DATE June 30, 2019 SUBJECT La Honda Creek Preserve, Sierra Azul Preserve, Purisima Uplands and Rancho San Antonio Preserve – Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Per Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) request, Swaim Biological Incorporated (SBI) has conducted habitat and occupancy surveys for special status mammal species at the La Honda Creek Preserve, Sierra Azul Preserve, Purisima Uplands (Guisti Property) and Rancho San Antonio Preserve in June 2019. Surveys evaluated structures and the surrounding areas in preparation for structure stabilization and demolition projects. SBI’s qualified biologists surveyed for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) and roosting bats at nine (9) structures, twelve (12) storage tanks and multiple debris piles at six (6) separate locations. This report details the methods and provides a summary of our survey results and recommendations. A follow-up bat emergence survey was conducted at the Sierra Azul Preserve - Beatty Property by District Biologist Matthew Chaney on July 30, 2019. 2. METHODS Special Status Bat Surveys Surveys for bats are difficult to standardize because of the large amount of variability that exists at individual survey sites and among survey sites in a project area, much less across the range of a species. Nevertheless, several practices were used to survey for bats, including; bat habitat assessments, daytime maternity roost and signs of bats use surveys (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining), emergence surveys, and acoustic surveys. SBI biologists conducted a daytime bat survey at each location to determine if the structures, storage tanks, and associated debris piles are currently in use by bats. During the surveys, the biologists inspected habitat DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 2 of 29 features on the exterior of each structure and searched for bats or signs of bat occupancy including maternity roosts, day roosting bats, guano pellets and urine staining. Coordinates and photographs were taken of each roost identified. The bat emergence and acoustic surveys began one-half hour before sunset and continued until at least one hour after sunset or until it was otherwise too dark to see emerging bats. Surveyors positioned themselves so that emerging bats would be silhouetted against the sky as they exited the roost. Surveyors were close enough to the roost to observe all exiting bats, but not close enough to influence emergence. Acoustic detectors were deployed in conjunction with emergence survey efforts to monitor bat activity within the proposed project area. Bat vocalization calls were recorded with SonoBatLIVE (using the Petterson M500 USB mic), Anabat Swift, and Pettersson D500 (bat acoustical detectors). Bat vocalization files were analyzed and vetted through SonoBat 4.4 using the SonoVet utility (bat call analysis software) by qualified biologists. In locations where suitable bat habitat was observed but no bats or signs of bats were observed, absence is not presumed. Bats may switch roosts on a nightly basis and the surveys conducted are not interpreted as presence/absence surveys. Bat occupancy was determined as a potential maternity colony whenever an aggregate of bats were observed roosting or emerging at a specific structure. Classification as a maternity colony is a conservative/cautious estimate for aggregates of bats and is therefore not discriminating between non- reproductive male or female roosts. A single bat could be a "maternity colony" (i.e. One adult bat with a pup) and even small maternity roosts could represent a large portion of the local bat population and are therefore "significant". Bats (including females with pups) may switch roosts on a nightly basis and therefore might use suitable habitat, if present, though not observed during the surveys. Therefore, we classified and reported aggregates of bats observed as maternity colonies during the summer/maternity season. San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat Surveys SBI qualified biologists also conducted detailed surveys for woodrats by searching the interior and exterior of all structures, storage tanks (exterior only), and associated debris piles for signs of woodrat occupancy (nests and droppings) within 50-foot of the project area. SBI flagged and photographed any nests that were encountered. Coordinates of each nest was recorded along with a description of the nest. 3. SURVEY RESULTS Survey results for each survey location are provided below. Site specific recommendations are provided at the end of each location section. Descriptions of recommendations for all sites are compiled at the end of the report. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 3 of 29 3.1 LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE – WHITE BARN (DYER BARN) SUMMARY The survey for White Barn on Allen Road, Woodside, California was conducted on June 17, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at the barn and surrounding area evaluating potential bat roosts and woodrat nest structures (Photo 1-2). Three roosting bats were detected during the daytime survey. No dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures although signs of rodent activity were observed throughout the barn. STRUCTURE The barn surveyed receives partial shade from the riparian corridor to the west (Photo 3). Surrounding the barn is signs of wetland / wet meadow as demonstrated by the presence of (giant plantago (Plantago major), sedges (Scirpus spp.), elderberry (Sambucus nigra spp. Caerulea.), and willows (Salix sp). A concrete drainage adjacent to the east side of the barn appears to drain overland flow into the adjacent drainage (Photo 4). The barn itself is in a flat that leads to a downstream ravine and riparian corridor. The interior of the barn (Photo 5 and 6) is comprised of one area subdivided into sections by feeding stalls, an interior enclosed chicken coop, and an open space area. The barn has a pitched roof with corrugated metal sheets held up in regular intervals by rafters (Photo 7). RESULTS The entire structure is accessible to bats and rodents through the gaps between the floor, roof and the walls of the barn. The gaps as well as multiple missing wood slats allow bats to easily enter the building and roost. These conditions provide suitable bat roosting habitat within the structure including the crevice habitat between the rafters and the corrugated roof. Moderately suitable maternity roost habitat is found adjacent to the structure in the form of bat tree roost habitat, no other structures or outbuildings were observed in the immediate area to provide additional maternity roost habitat. Suitable bat foraging habitat is found throughout the White Barn survey area. Bat guano was observed in the interior of the structure on the floor along the north wall (Photo 8). Three Myotis sp. (Photo 9 and 10) were observed day roosting in these rafters on the north side of the barn. Abundant insect activity was observed in the adjacent riparian area providing suitable bat foraging habitat. Rodent sign is present throughout the structure with multiple large grass nests (Photo 11) and a significant number of rodent droppings observed (Photo 12). While the biologists were within the chicken coop, they heard a rodent scurrying directly overhead. No woodrat nests were observed on the premises or within the 50-foot buffer. There was a woodrat squeaking repeatedly in the nearby riparian corridor although no middens were observed where the noise was coming from. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 4 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Suitable bat roost habitat is present within the structure and moderately suitable maternity roost habitat is found adjacent to the structure in the form of bat tree roost habitat. Based on the observed presence of at least three bats roosting within the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. No signs of woodrats were present in the structure or surrounding natural habitat. While no woodrat nests were observed, the riparian habitat near the structure provides suitable habitat and absence of woodrats should not be assumed. Recommendations for the White Barn include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  The need for replacement habitat due to impacts on the maternity roost per District guidelines is dependent upon whether the planned stabilization activities will eliminate roosting habitat. Determination of the need for replacement habitat plan should coincide with the development of the deterrent plan. Photo 1. White Barn exterior. Photo 2. White Barn exterior. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 5 of 29 Photo 3. White Barn exterior missing wooden slats and entry points for bats. Photo 4. Concrete drainage to the east of White Barn that feeds into the riparian corridor. Photo 5. Interior of White Barn. Photo 6. Interior of White Barn. Photo 7. Corrugated roof slats and rafters provide suitable bat roosting habitat. Photo 8. Bat guano present on the floor. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 6 of 29 Photo 9. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in rafters. Photo 10. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in rafters. Photo 11. Rodent nests observed within the barn. These grass nests are most likely deer mouse (Peromyscus sp.) nests. Photo 12. Rodent droppings and destroyed food caches observed within the barn. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 7 of 29 3.2 LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE – REDWOOD CABIN SUMMARY An external survey for Redwood Cabin on Skyline Boulevard, Redwood City, California was conducted on June 17, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 26, 2019 by biologists Rachael Burnham and Leslie Rivas. No signs of roosting bats were detected during the internal and external survey of existing structures within. Four dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside the structure. No bats were observed emerging from the Redwood Cabin during the emergence survey. Acoustic recordings identified fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) foraging calls in the vicinity. STRUCTURE The Redwood Cabin is a one-story structure situated in a redwood forest and is well shaded with only dappled light coming through to the cabin and forest floor (Photo 13 and 14). The log cabin has several rooms, including a kitchen and two bathrooms. On the east side, the deck and portion of the house are supported off the ground by pillars and other support structure. RESULTS There are several possible entryways that bats and woodrats could enter the house: open/broken window, chimney, and crevices in the floor and roof. The ample space underneath the house had numerous crevices that could be used by roosting bats. There were also many cracks and crevices that could provide bat roosting habitat under the eaves, between the logs, and inside the cabin. However, no roosting bats nor signs of bats (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining) were observed during the survey. In general, moderately to highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat surrounds the Redwood Cabin and nearby riparian area. Bat tree roost crevice and cavity roost habitat can be found through the Redwood Cabin work area. Signs of woodrats were present throughout the cabin including a large number of fecal pellets in all rooms of the cabin. One woodrat nest structure was built into a cabinet in the kitchen (Photo 15), twigs around and behind the oven, twigs on ceiling beams in between rooms (Photo 16), and two nest structures built on top of sinks in two rooms (possibly connected behind the wall) (Photo 17 – 18). EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence survey at the Redwood Cabin was conducted one hour before sunset and continued until one-half hour after sunset. No bats were observed emerging from the structure. The acoustic recording device set up in front of the cabin identified one species of bats: fringed myotis. During the emergence survey, no bats were detected emerging from the cabin. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 8 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The cabin provides suitable bat roost habitat outside and within the cabin with multiple entry points. Moderately to highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat surrounds the Redwood Cabin and nearby riparian area. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside the cabin during day surveys and no bats were observed emerging during night surveys, a single bat (fringed myotis) was detected with acoustics within proximity of the cabin. Therefore, there is still potential of bat roosting given the available habitat outside and within the cabin. However, this structure receives little light throughout the day and the building is unlikely to warm up sufficiently enough to support a bat maternity roost. Signs of woodrats were present throughout the structure, however no natural nests were observed outside of the structure. The riparian habitat near the structure provides moderately to highly suitable habitat and may become occupied by woodrats prior to project work. Recommendations for the Redwood Cabin include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 13. North side of Redwood cabin. Photo 14. Redwood cabin. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 9 of 29 Photo 15. Woodrat nest built into kitchen cabinet of redwood cabin. Photo 16. Woodrat nest on ceiling beams of redwood cabin. Photo 17. Woodrat nest on sink in Room A of redwood cabin. Photo 18. Woodrat nest on sink in a Room B of redwood cabin. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 10 of 29 3.3 SIERRA AZUL PRESERVE‐ MEYER PROPERTY SUMMARY An external survey for Meyer Property on Mount Umunhum Road, San Jose, California was conducted on June 11, 2019 by biologists Ben Dudek and Joie de Leon. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 25, 2019 by biologists Elizabeth Armistead, Ben Dudek, Kathleen Grady, and Leslie Rivas. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at all three structures (labeled A, B, and C) for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures, and a nighttime bat emergence survey. No roosting bats nor signs of bats (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining) were observed inside any of the three structures. One Myotis Sp. (Photo 27) was observed in a crevice in a nearby shed on June 11th but not on June 25th. Two dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed in oak trees Structure A. Two bats were observed emerging from two exit points during the emergence survey from Structure B. Acoustic recordings identified two species of bats foraging within the vicinity: California myotis (Myotis californicus) and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). STRUCTURES Structure A is a two-level house that is set to be demolished (Photo 19 and 20). Structure A is well shaded on the north and west sides of the house by oak trees and is unshaded on the east and south sides of the house. Structure B is the one-level studio apartment that will not be demolished (Photo 25). The structure is mostly unshaded with a flat-topped roof. There is a garage with an open-air shed space attached. Structure C is a shed that will also remain and not be demolished (Photo 26). In general, moderately – highly suitable bat maternity habitat is found adjacent to the structures listed above and within the structures scheduled to remain. Figure 1. Meyer Property Structures DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 11 of 29 RESULTS Structure A: The ceiling of Structure A is accessible to bats through a few entry points under the roof eves and the interior is accessible through the chimney (Photo 21). The interior of the house is comprised of a lower level with six sections (kitchen, dining room, laundry room, living room, bedroom, bathroom, and a crawl space) and an upper level with two sections (hallway and bedroom). No visible sign of bat occupancy was observed inside the house. Some nearby oaks had hollows that could provide moderately to highly suitable bat maternity habitat, including a tree with full sun exposure with 20% exfoliating bark. Two woodrat nests were located approximately 25-feet from Structure A in the hollowed-out trunks of two large coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) (Photo 22). A black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) nest was observed under the eve of Structure A. Structure B: A seam running under the roof eaves of Structure B was observed that could provide suitable bat roosting habitat although no roosting bats or signs of roosting bats were observed (Photo 23). Inside Structure B large quantities of woodrat fecal pellets were observed scattered throughout the shed. Structure C: The open structure has suitable bat maternity and night roosting habitat within (Photo 24). A potential woodrat midden is located outside of the shed on an upper shelf (Photo 25). Shed: There is a shed to the west of the structures that were to be surveyed where a day roosting Myotis sp. was observed on June 11 (Photo 26). No roosting bats were observed on June 25. EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence surveys at Structure A and B were conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one and a half hours after sunset. No bats were observed emerging from Structure A. However, bats were observed foraging in the oaks about 25-feet north of Structure A. At Structure B, the biologists observed two bats emerge from two points (Table 1) and fly west towards the coast live oak trees. Acoustic surveys positioned over the open space south of Structure B confirmed the presence of California myotis and big brown bat foraging in the vicinity. Table 1. Bat Emergence Results at Sierra Azul – Meyer Property (Structure B) Time No. of Bats Emerging Location Latitude Longitude 2048 1 Structure B - northwest 37° 10' 2.46" N 121° 52' 9.22" W 2053 1 Structure B - southwest 37° 10' 2.24" N 121° 52' 8.87" W Table 2. Woodrat nest locations – Meyer Property Location Latitude Longitude Flagging Color Oak tree near Structure A 37.1670993 -121.8695911 Pink Oak tree near Structure A 37.1670114 -121.8696032 Pink Structure C 37.1670462 -121.8690466 Not flagged DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 12 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since these some structures are scheduled for removal and others only stabilization (as described above), we present recommendations for each specific structure. All structures are potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat. Bats were observed foraging in the in the oaks near these structures which serve as moderately to highly suitable maternity roost habitat nearby. Structure A: The structure provides potential bat entry points to the structure through ventilation holes in the roof eaves and the chimney. The structure provides suitable roosting habitat under the roof eaves and within the structure if access was obtained through any of the current entry points. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside of the structure during day surveys and no bats were observed emerging from the structure during night surveys, absence cannot be assumed. Two natural woodrat nests were observed outside of the structure in two large coast live oaks although they are likely outside of the disturbance area for demolition activities. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure A include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to demolition activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure demolition activities.  General woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Structure B: The roof eaves of the structure provide suitable bat roosting habitat. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside of the structure during day surveys, two bats were observed emerging from the structure during the night survey. Based on the observed presence of more than one bat emerging from the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat sign was observed within the structure although no natural nests were observed. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure B include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2.  Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW. This replacement habitat will serve as replacement habitat for any habitat removed or disturbed within all structures at the Meyer Property. No additional replacement habitat is recommended unless required by CDFW. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 13 of 29 Structure C: While no bats or signs were observed within the shed during day surveys, though potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat is present. Signs of woodrats were present in the structure, however no natural nests were observed outside in the vicinity. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure C include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Develop a bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 19. Structure A is partially shaded by oak trees. Photo 20. Structure A Photo 21. Ventilation holes under the eve of Structure A. Photo 22. Woodrat middens in hollows of oak trees west of Structure A. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 14 of 29 Photo 23. Structure B – north-side view. Photo 24. Structure C – shed west of Structure A. Photo 25. Possible woodrat midden on shelf in Structure C. Photo 26. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in crevice in nearby shed to the west of the structure to be removed. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 15 of 29 3.4 SIERRA AZUL PRESERVE – BEATTY PROPERTY SUMMARY An external survey for Beatty Property off Alma Bridge Road, Los Gatos, California was conducted on June 19, 2019 by Hailey Pexton and Ben Dudek. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 28, 2019 by biologists Elizabeth Armistead, Rachael Burnham, and Leslie Rivas. The biologists conducted a daytime survey for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures and a night emergence survey. No bats were observed on the June 19 survey. On June 28 six roosting Myotis sp. bats were detected during the daytime survey and eight bats were observed emerging from four exit points during the emergence survey. On July 30, District staff completed follow up emergence surveys and observed 11 bats emerging from the structure. Habitat surrounding the structure is highly suitable for maternity bat roost and foraging habitat. Three dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed within 50 feet of the existing structure with large amounts of woodrat sign (e.g., fecal pellets) observed throughout the entire house. STRUCTURE The structure is a one-story house with crawl space and is situated in oak woodland with nearby grassland and Lexington Reservoir within 500 feet of the property (Photo 27). There was a total of nine rooms in the house, including a kitchen, laundry room, and bathroom. The house is shaded on the north, east, and south sides and has full sun exposure on the west side. RESULTS Biologists fully surveyed around the exterior of the house and found multiple potential bat and woodrat entry and exit points on all sides of the house (Photo 27 and 28). Several large oaks surrounding the structure could support roosting bat habitat; two snags on the west side with 5 – 10% exfoliating bark with full sun exposure, one snag of the east side with 5% exfoliating bark with full sun exposure (Photo 29). The house is in disrepair with many decaying eaves around the roofline that bats could be obtaining access through. There is space between many of the boarded-up windows and doors, and some wooden slats of the house are broken that could also provide bat entry points (Photos 30 – 35). There are various holes and broken wooden slats along the bottom of the house that could provide bat or woodrat entry. There are large amounts of bat signs (e.g., urine staining and guano) on the walls of the interior of the house and all rooms showed signs of bat use (Photo 36). Six bats (Myotis sp.) were observed in various places throughout the house. Upon entry to the house, large amounts of woodrat sign (e.g., fecal pellets) were observed throughout the entire house (Photo 37 and 38). Lots of debris on the floor of the house and two stick piles observed, one on top of the stove in the kitchen and one on top of the sink in the bathroom (Photos 37 - 42). No substantial woodrat nests were observed inside the structure, but there are numerous woodrat access points to the crawl space and area between ceiling and roof that were not surveyed. Three woodrat nests were observed within the 50 feet of the Beatty house structure (Photos 39 – 41). DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 16 of 29 EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence survey was conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one half hour after sunset. Eight bats were observed exiting the structure (Table 3) at four locations (Photo 34 and 35). Table 3. Bat Emergence at Sierra Azul – Beatty Property Time No. of Bats Emerging Location Latitude Longitude 2032 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2033 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2033 1 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2038 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2046 1 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2047 2 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2048 1 south 37° 11' 26.84" N 121° 59' 8.45" W Table 4. Woodrat nest locations Beatty Property Location (see photos 39-41) Latitude Longitude Flagging Color South of house – woodrat number 1 37.1906508 -121.9856141 Pink Down hillside from house – woodrat number 2 37.1909208 -121.9857824 Pink In tree adjacent to house – woodrat number 3 37.1909558 -121.9858746 Pink DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Beatty Property provides highly suitable bat roosting habitat. Based on the observed presence of bat signs throughout the structure, observed bats roosting within, and bats emerging from the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat sign was observed throughout the structure and natural nests observed outside. Recommendations for the Beatty Property include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to removal activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 17 of 29 Photo 27. Beatty property. Photo 28. The housing structure is located beneath a canopy of coast live oaks (photo facing west). Photo 29. Two snags that could support roosting bats on west side of Beatty structure. Photo 32. Hole on wall that could provide bat access. Photo 33. Wooden slats peeling away from the wall. Photo 34. Bats observed emerging from hole in wall (circled in red) on east side of the house. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 18 of 29 Photo 35. Bats observed emerging from wooden slats (circled in red) on west side of the house. Photo 36. Bat urine staining and guano on wall; Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting. Photo 37. Stick pile on top of stove in kitchen. Photo 38. Large amount of woodrat feces on floor. Photo 39. Woodrat nest number 1 is located under an ornamental bush 9 meters south of the structure . Photo 40. Woodrat nest number 2 is located along a fence 10 meters northeast of the structure. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 19 of 29 Photo 41. Woodrat nest number 3 is located in a tree, northwest of the structure. Photo 42. Woodrat A large amount of woodrat feces was observed in one location along the exterior of the structure. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 20 of 29 3.5 PURISIMA UPLANDS SUMMARY A survey for Purisima Uplands in San Mateo County, California was conducted on June 27, 2019 by biologists Victoria Brunal, Rachael Burnham, Ryan Byrnes, and Ben Dudek. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at all locations for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures, and a nighttime bat emergence survey at Areas B and E. No sign of roosting bats was detected during the daytime survey of existing structures. Fourteen dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures. Three bats were observed emerging from the roofline of the hunting cabin in Area E during the emergence survey. Acoustic recordings at Area E identified these three individual bats as two species: California myotis and Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis). No bats were observed during the emergence survey at Area B. RESULTS AREA A: The structure at Area A is a small, open, un-shaded shed with a corrugated tin roof. No sign of bats (e.g., guano pellets and urine staining) was observed on the inside of the structure. The exposure of the shed, and lack of small crevices inside the structure may make this building sub-optimal for day roosting bats. Dusky-footed woodrat sign (e.g., pellets) were observed inside the shed. Additionally, five woodrat nest structures were observed throughout the site, including a nest underneath Tank 13 and a second nest in a pipe leading away from the tank. AREA B: The inside of Tanks 1-2 could not be observed due to their height, but both tanks appeared to be single-walled and open on the top. These tanks are likely unsuitable for day roosting bats due to exposure to the elements and the lack of additional surfaces that could create crevices. The distillation column was capped on the top but appeared to have a small opening on its side about 15 feet off the ground that could potentially be used by roosting bats (Photo 43). The structure on the east side of Area B included a series of iron grates over a concrete box filled with water as well as a dilapidated shed with a corrugated tin roof. The shed contained pieces of wood attached to corrugated tin that created small crevices that could be suitable for bats, but no signs of bats were observed. Large woodrat nest structures were observed inside the series of iron gates and inside the dilapidated shed, as well as behind the shed (Photo 44 and 45). AREA C: Tanks 3-6 appeared sealed and therefore unlikely to support any bat roosting habitat. The roof on Tank 7 is in the process of falling off the structure. Where the ceiling hung over the tank, there was a small area where bats could find shelter, but no sign of bats was observed. One woodrat nest was observed near Tank 3, and another nest was observed near Tank 6. AREA D: Tanks 8-12, the area around the concrete pylons, and the various debris piles all were searched. The tanks all appeared to be single-walled without any additional surfaces to create crevices suitable for day-roosting bats. Open tops, or open sides in the cases of tanks lying on their sides, created exposure to DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 21 of 29 the elements that may preclude these structures from being used by bats (Photo 46). A large woodrat nest was observed inside Tank 11, and two smaller satellite nests were observed surrounding the tank. AREA E: The exterior of the hunting cabin had rotted and loose wood paneling, especially near the roofline, that could be suitable for roosting bats (Photo 47 and 48). A search of the structure’s exterior found no sign of bats, however, many holes and crevices that led to the space between the roof and the structure’s interior could not be fully observed. A search of the interior of the structure revealed that the previous owners had used the cabin recently. Maternity colony day-roosting habitat was observed inside the structure and no guano pellets or urine staining were observed. Additionally, no sign of woodrats were observed inside the cabin, however small mammals droppings (likely Peromyscus sp.) were present throughout the cabin. One large woodrat nest structure was observed behind the cabin. EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence surveys at Areas B and E were conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one and half hours after sunset. At Area B, the biologists observed the dilapidated building and an opening on the distillation column. No bats were observed emerging from the small opening on the distillation column, or from the dilapidated structure on the east side of Area B. Additionally no bats were observed flying over the habitat. At Area E, the biologist observed the roofline along the front of the hunting cabin. Three bats were observed emerging from the front of the hunting cabin near the roofline. As the bats were seen flying from the cabin, the acoustic recording device set up in front of the cabin identified two species of bats: California myotis and Mexican free-tailed bat. After emergence, bats were observed flying over the habitat and continued to be recorded by the recording device. Table 5. Woodrat nest locations Purisma Uplands Location Latitude Longitude Flagging Color Area A – woodrat nest 1 wooden shed 37.401899 -122.410356 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 2 near T13 37.401916 -122.410164 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 3 near T13 37.401961 -122.410085 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 4 near T13 37.402006 -122.410073 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 5 near T13 37.402015 -122.409983 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 6 near T11 37.402713 -122.409107 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 7 near T11 37.402723 -122.409152 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 8 near T11 37.402731 -122.409062 Pink Area C – woodrat nest 9 near T6 37.402968 -122.407817 Pink Area C – woodrat nest 10 near T3 37.403112 -122.407635 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 11 near Storage Shed 37.403192 -122.407431 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 12 near Storage Shed 37.403155 -122.407364 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 13 near Storage Shed 37.403191 -122.407363 Pink Hunting Cabin – woodrat nest 14 37.406049 -122.403736 Pink DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 22 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS None of the tanks to be removed provide suitable bat roost habitat. The structure in Area A provides sub- optimal day roosting habitat and the shed in Area B provides suitable bat roosting habitat in the form of crevices although no bats or signs of bats were observed at either structure. No bats or signs of bats were observed during inspections of the interior of the Hunting Cabin in Area E, however, three bats were observed emerging during night surveys. Based on the observation of bats emerging from the Hunting Cabin this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat signs and nests were observed throughout the property in structures, debris piles and natural nests. Recommendations for the Purisima Property include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to demolition and debris removal activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure demolition activities at the Area E Hunting Cabin.  Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat for impacts to removal of maternity roost habitat at Area E Hunting Cabin as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW. This replacement habitat will serve as replacement habitat for all bat roost habitat removed or disturbed during removal activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 43. Area B – the distillation column was sealed on top but appeared to have a small opening on the left-hand side near the valve connection. Photo 44. Area B – woodrat nest structure inside the series of iron grates. This structure sits over a concrete spring box filled with water. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 23 of 29 Photo 45. Area B – woodrat nest structure inside the dilapidated building. Photo 46. Area D – most tanks were single-walled without any small crevice space for roosting bats. Photo 47. Area E – additional openings and interstitial spaces underneath the roofline. Photo 48. Area E – openings underneath the roofline of the hunting cabin. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 24 of 29 3.6 RANCHO SAN ANTONIO PRESERVE‐ DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN SUMMARY The survey for White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm in Cupertino, California was conducted on June 18, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at the barn and surrounding area evaluating potential bat roosts and woodrat nest structures. Though the barn provides potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat, no roosting bats were observed. Signs (bat guano) of bat roosting were observed in the upper level of the barn. In general, highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat and foraging habitat was observed throughout the site in the form of bat tree roosts and man-made structures. No dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures although signs of rodent activity were observed throughout the barn. STRUCTURE The barn that was surveyed is one of many structures in Deer Hollow Farm that is an active educational farm. The lower level of the barn is actively used as a goat milk barn, storage location, and hay barn (Photos 49 and 50). The upper level / former hayloft of the barn is less stable although it too is actively used for storage. The barn receives partial shade from the riparian corridor to the north and a large valley oak to the south. The barn has a pitched roof with corrugated metal sheets held up in regular intervals by rafters (Photo 51 and 52). RESULTS The entire structure is accessible to bats and rodents through the gaps between the roof and hayloft doors which are left open. The openings allow for bats to easily enter the building and roost although the openness may reduce the ability for the barn to be used as a maternity roost. These conditions provide suitable bat roosting habitat within the structure including the crevice habitat between the rafters and the corrugated roof. Bat guano was observed in the interior of the structure on the floor throughout the hayloft (Photo 53). Abundant insect activity was observed in the adjacent riparian area providing suitable bat foraging habitat and the adjacent riparian area has plentiful tree roost habitat available. Rodent sign is present throughout the structure with rodent droppings observed (Photo 54). No woodrat nests were observed on the premises or within the 50-foot buffer. While no woodrat nests were observed, the riparian habitat near the structure provides suitable habitat and absence of woodrats should not be assumed. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS While no day roosting bats were observed during the surveys, signs of bats presence (guano) was observed. The site serves a potentially suitable day and night roosting habitat with adjacent suitable bat foraging and tree roost habitat. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 25 of 29 No signs of woodrats were present in the structure or surrounding habitat. The active farm nearby likely limits the potential of woodrats to occur within a construction footprint for the barn, however, the nearby riparian habitat provides suitable habitat and therefore woodrat absence should not be assumed. Recommendations for the Deer Hollow White Barn include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 49. White Barn exterior showing hayloft doors and open access points. Photo 50. White Barn exterior showing hayloft doors and open access points. Photo 51. White Barn hayloft with crevice roost habitat between roof and rafters. Photo 52. Interior of hayloft with wooden slat openings DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 26 of 29 Photo 53. Bat guano on floorboards. Photo 54. Lower level with hay storage and milk barn DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 27 of 29 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of these surveys, bats and woodrats are currently using multiple locations within and adjacent to the structures surveyed. 4.1 BATS The recommendations below should be implemented for each survey location as discussed above in Section 3. At some of these locations suitable bat habitat was observed but no bats were observed during the daytime roost surveys or during emergence. However, bats may switch roosts on a nightly basis, therefore, there is still potential of bats roosting within these structures where suitable habitat is observed. A demolition and deterrent plan for each location that identifies locations for deterrence and what mitigation measures (i.e., replacement habitat) are warranted prior to structure demolition and/or stabilization should be completed as recommended above for each survey location. The following measures and recommendations for bat deterrence and demolition will be included in the exclusion/deterrent plan. Recommendations should be implemented on a site by site, case by case basis. Not all recommendations are appropriate for all locations, see the Discussion and Recommendations section for each survey location above for reference. General bat avoidance and minimization measures  Within two days of the start of work, at all project locations, preconstruction bat roost surveys should be conducted.  If work is anticipated to occur during the bat wintering period (generally from November 16 through February 15) preconstruction winter roost surveys should be conducted. No building or tree work (over 16” dbh) should be conducted during this time if surveys determine that special status bats or hibernacula are present during winter roost surveys.  If individual nonbreeding and non‐special status bats are present, a qualified biologist may be retained to remove the bats and work may proceed year-round at La Honda Creek Preserve – Redwood Cabin, Sierra Azul Preserve – Meyer Property structures, and the Rancho San Antonio Preserve site. If a maternity roost or special status species bat is observed, no work is allowed without first excluding and providing alternate roost site(s) outside of the breeding season.  Demolition should be conducted during warmer weather when nighttime lows are not below 50° Fahrenheit, and most bats are likely to be active.  Recommend that crevices first be demolished with hand tools.  Initiate demolition in the early evening after sunset with a bat biologist present to capture and temporarily hold any bats that are uncovered.  If evening work is not feasible, initiate demolition in the early afternoon with a qualified bat biologist present. Early afternoon work will ensure that any remaining roosting bats are not in torpor, as torpid bats may not immediately arouse and escape with disturbance. If any bats are DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 28 of 29 uncovered, they should be temporarily held and released in the evening. Bat roost deterrent/exclusion plan At survey locations with potentially suitable bat roost habitat observed, a site-specific bat roost deterrent plan for is recommended. The following measures below should be considered but may not be applicable to all sites. Alternative roost deterrents may be implemented if approved by qualified biologist. The site- specific deterrent plan shall be submitted to CDFW for approval.  Deterrents shall be placed outside of April through August maternity season.  At least seven (7) days before the properties are demolished and/or stabilized, open all windows and doors to increase airflow.  Deploy ultrasonic acoustic deterrents inside the structures and/or near areas where bats may roost. No acoustic deterrents shall be places next to roosting bats, if bats are observed, deterrents will be placed once bats have left the site.  Deploy/Install one-way bat doors at locations where bats are observed entering and exiting structures. One-way bat doors and exclusion of bats from the building should occur outside of the April through August maternity season. Replacement maternity roost habitat At survey locations with identified maternity roosts, no building demolition or tree work (over 16” dbh) should be conducted April 15 – August 31. Where structures with identified maternity roost habitat will be eliminated, replacement habitat is recommended. CDFW may not require mitigation for these locations, therefore, CDFW should be contacted for guidance for each specific location.  If CDFW requires replacement habitat, no work should occur without first excluding and providing natural or manmade alternate roost site(s) outside of the breeding season.  Alternate roost site(s) should be developed by District Natural Resources staff or a consulting biologist and submitted to CDFW before installation.  Whenever possible alternative roost site(s) should be provided 6 months to 1 year prior to the removal of maternity roosting habitat to allow bats adequate time to discover the new locations.  Artificial alternative roost site(s) shall be monitored for occupancy by a qualified biologist within one year of installation. 4.2 WOODRATS The recommendations below should be implemented for each survey location as discussed above in Section 3. A preconstruction survey is warranted at all locations as woodrat houses may become occupied or unoccupied, and new nests constructed prior to project work. General woodrat avoidance measures DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 29 of 29  Conduct focused follow up surveys are at all structures at least five days before construction to confirm the presence of woodrat houses and develop a deterrence/relocation plan if necessary.  For all woodrat nests that occur in natural habitats (i.e. not within any structure footprint) and cannot be avoided by project activities, a qualified biologist shall live trap to determine if the nest is in use. Trapping activities should occur prior to April and after mid-July each year to prevent impacts to woodrats rearing young or young woodrats. If a nest is found to be unoccupied or not in use for 3 full days (2 nights of trapping), then it may be removed. The nest shall be relocated, or a pile of replacement sticks shall be placed outside of the development footprint for future colonization or re-use.  In some District locations, woodrats have colonized abandoned buildings, old vehicles, diffuse garbage piles, or other locations where nests are difficult to locate, individuals cannot be live- trapped consistently, and/or there is a lack of woody materials for nest reconstruction. In these instances, live trapping is not required (especially if there is a risk to human health) if the surrounding area provides suitable habitat or supports a healthy colony that is being avoided and/or can be enhanced. Work at these locations must occur prior to April and after mid-July to prevent impacts to woodrats rearing young.  Once trapped, nests shall be torn down and rebuilt surrounding a log-based structure, an inverted wooden planter, or similar structure having at least one entrance and exit hole that is slightly buried into the ground to anchor. Any cached food and nest material encountered shall be placed within the new structure during rebuilding.  If individual rats are present, they will be encouraged to leave the area on their own which may include demolition or cleanup in phases, and/or hand removal of materials. If individual woodrats are observed during implementation, work in the immediate area shall cease until the animal leaves the area on its own. Work may continue at other locations away from the observation location. If the animal does not leave the area on its own, the project biologist or a biological monitor shall be notified. Work may proceed at the observation site, once the animal has left the area on its own or a biological monitor is present to ensure that the individual woodrats are not harmed.  If nests are present that cannot be trapped or removed, woody debris piles that look like woodrat houses can be constructed to provide opportunities for sheltering and colonization by displaced woodrats.  Relocated nests are expected to eventually be re-colonized and should be monitored one-year post construction using visual surveys and/or wildlife cameras to determine if a relocated nest has returned to use. DR A F T Attachment 1 EXHIBIT F Topographic Site Plan by Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. DR A F T Attachment 1 GARAGE NOT IN SCOPE DR A F T Attachment 1 EXHIBIT G Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers DR A F T Attachment 1 Mothballing Guidelines The focus of mothballing procedures is to stabilize and secure the building: Stabilization • Structurally stabilize the building, based on a professional condition assessment. • Exterminate or control pests, including termites and rodents. • Protect the exterior from moisture penetration. Mothballing • Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. • Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. • Secure or modify utilities. • Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. Mothballing Checklist In developing mothballing procedures, the following checklist should be used to ensure that work items are not inadvertently omitted. Moisture • Is the roof watertight? • Do the gutters retain their proper pitch and are they clean? • Are downspout joints intact? • Are drains unobstructed? • Is wood siding in good condition? • Is site properly graded for water run-off? • Is vegetation cleared from around the building foundation to avoid trapping moisture? Pests • Have nests/pests been removed from the building's interior and eaves? • Are adequate screens in place to guard against pests? • Has the building been inspected and treated for termites, carpenter ants, rodents, etc.? • If toxic droppings from bats, rats and pigeons are present, has a special company been brought in for its disposal? Housekeeping • Have the following been removed from the interior: trash, hazardous materials such as inflammable liquids, poisons, and paints and canned goods that could freeze and burst? • Is the interior broom-clean? • Have furnishings been removed to a safe location? • If furnishings are remaining in the building, are they properly protected from dust, pests, ultraviolet light, and other potentially harmful problems? • Have significant architectural elements that have become detached from the building been labeled and stored in a safe place? • Is there a building file? Security • Have fire and police departments been notified that the building will be mothballed? DR A F T Attachment 1 " Are smoke and fire detectors in working order? " Are the exterior doors and windows securely fastened? " Are plans in place to monitor the building on a regular basis? " Are the keys to the building in a secure but accessible location? " Are the grounds being kept from becoming overgrown? Utilities " Have utility companies disconnected/shut off or fully inspected water, gas, and electric lines? " If the building will not remain heated, have water pipes been drained and glycol added? Ventilation " Have steps been taken to ensure proper ventilation of the building? " Have interior doors been left open for ventilation purposes? " Has the secured building been checked within the last 3 months for interior dampness or excessive humidity? Maintenance Chart The following maintenance action items should be considered when developing the maintenance program for the building to be mothballed. 1-3 months; periodic " Regular drive by surveillance " Check attic during storms if possible " Monthly walk arounds " Check entrances " Check window coverings for breakage " Mowing as required " Check for graffiti or vandalism " Enter every 3 months to air out " Check for musty air " Check for moisture damage " Check battery packs and monitoring equipment " Check for evidence of pest intrusion Every 6 months; spring and fall " Site clean-up; pruning and trimming " Gutter and downspout check " Check crawlspace for pests " Clean out storm drains Every 12 months " Maintenance contract inspections for equipment/utilities " Check roof for loose or missing shingles " Termite and pest inspection/treatment " Exterior materials spot repair and touch up painting " Remove bird droppings or other stains from exterior " Maintain building defensible space per Cal Fire standards " Check and update building file Reference: Park, Sharon C., 1993. Mothballing Historic Buildings. Preservation Brief No. 31. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, DC: Government. Printing Office. 15 p. Available online at https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/31-mothballing.htm DR A F T Attachment 1 EXHIBIT H Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Open Space District Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA ZFA Structural Engineers CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 18 December 2019 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 Page & Turnbull Inc. BOD & Alternative Evaluation dated 9-30-19. ZFA Structural Engineers draft estimate review comments 10-31-19. Comments and clarifications received through 11 December 2019. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • COST ESTIMATE INTRODUCTORY NOTES This estimate is based on verbal direction from the client and the following items, received 30 September 2019: General ZFA Structural Engineers BOD Reports dated October 2019. Sketches of 11 July 2019 with BOD option notes per Report. Terracon Hazmat report dated 8-13-19. Kielty Arborist Services LLC Report dated 9-30-19. Construction start date of July 2020 The following items are excluded from this estimate: Professional fees. Building permits and fees. Inspections and tests. Furniture, fixtures & equipment, except as noted. Installation of owner furnished equipment. Construction change order contingency. Overtime. Items referenced as NOT INCLUDED or NIC in estimate. The midpoint of construction of January 2021 is based on: We strongly advise the client to review this estimate in detail. If any interpretations in this estimate appear to differ from those intended by the design documents, they should be addressed immediately. Estimated construction duration of 12 months This estimate is based on a Design-Bid-Build delivery method. This estimate is based on prevailing wage labor rates. This estimate is based on a detailed measurement of quantities. We have made allowances for items that were not clearly defined in the drawings. The client should verify these allowances. This estimate is based on a minimum of four competitive bids and a stable bidding market. This estimate should be updated if more definitive information becomes available, or if there is any change in scope. DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST GFA $/SF AREA WHITE BARN OPTIONS: 01. WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 $39,004 1,012 $38.54 01A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 02. WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 $116,423 1,012 $115.04 02A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 03. WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 $396,904 1,012 $392.20 03A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 04. WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 $171,982 1,012 $169.94 REDWOOD CABIN OPTIONS: 05. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 $54,250 1,980 $27.40 05A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 06. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 $194,501 1,980 $98.23 06A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 07. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 $736,793 1,980 $372.12 07A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 08. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 $245,869 1,980 $124.18 BEATTY PROPERTY OPTIONS: 09. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 $63,920 1,912 $33.43 09A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 10. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 $208,791 1,912 $109.20 10A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 11. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 $674,313 1,912 $352.67 11A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 12. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 $233,284 1,912 $122.01 1.) The numbers above include mark-ups including escalation to January 2021 at 5% Per Annum. contractor general conditions and insurances. 2.) Design contingency is zero for options 1 and 4. 5% for option 2, and 10% for option 3. 3.) The Owner should add for soft costs and include a separate construction contingency. 4.) Long term maintenance costs have been separated to delineate from capitol costs. PROJECT SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 1 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $34,249 $33.84 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $34,249 $33.84 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$3,425 $3.38 SUBTOTAL $37,674 $37.23 INSURANCE 2.00%$753 $0.74 SUBTOTAL $38,427 $37.97 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$576 $0.57 TOTAL BUILDING COST $39,004 $38.54 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 2 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $34,249 $33.84 111 Site Preparation $6,850 $6.77 112 Site Improvements $27,399 $27.07 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $34,249 $33.84 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 3 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel)NIC This design idea was not practical due to location TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 140 LF 2.50 $350 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $6,850 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)300 LF 67.42 $20,226 Add for barbed wire outrigger 300 LF 7.42 $2,225 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $27,399 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 4 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 5 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $25,040 $24.74 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $23,320 $23.04 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $49,002 $48.42 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $97,362 $96.21 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$4,868 $4.81 SUBTOTAL $102,230 $101.02 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$10,223 $10.10 SUBTOTAL $112,453 $111.12 INSURANCE 2.00%$2,249 $2.22 SUBTOTAL $114,702 $113.34 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$1,721 $1.70 TOTAL BUILDING COST $116,423 $115.04 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 6 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $25,040 $24.74 031 Floor and Roof Construction $25,040 $24.74 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $23,320 $23.04 041 Exterior Walls $23,320 $23.04 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $49,002 $48.42 111 Site Preparation $49,002 $48.42 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $97,362 $96.21 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 7 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor replacement work Add pressure treated blocking and shims at deteriorated 120 LF 30.00 $3,600 wood grade beams to prevent further settlement Structure strengthening at walls Wall braces inside exterior wall for lateral strengthening Treated timber cross braces, 2x10 each side of post Cross braces at Grid 1 & 3, 18' average lengths 288 LF 27.50 $7,920 Fix braces T&B to posts 16 EA 175.00 $2,800 Cross braces at Grid A & F, 18' long 288 LF 27.50 $7,920 Fix braces T&B to posts 16 EA 175.00 $2,800 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $25,040 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building, limited Close off doors, board up with plywood 240 SF 15.00 $3,600 Fill other miscellaneous openings, windows and gaps 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Rehab windows Repair window frames 56 LF 50.00 $2,800 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 56 LF 45.00 $2,520 Clear lexan view panel 86 SF 40.00 $3,440 Paint and seal window frames 56 LF 15.00 $840 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $23,320 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure Shoring and support work, Allowance 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 140 LF 2.50 $350 Hazmat demolition Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 8 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior 1,430 SF 3.60 $5,148 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $49,002 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 9 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $26,117 $25.81 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $83,050 $82.07 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $26,571 $26.26 05 ROOFING $32,872 $32.48 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $146,258 $144.52 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $314,868 $311.13 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$15,743 $15.56 SUBTOTAL $330,611 $326.69 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$17,908 $17.70 SUBTOTAL $348,520 $344.39 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$34,852 $34.44 SUBTOTAL $383,371 $378.83 INSURANCE 2.00%$7,667 $7.58 SUBTOTAL $391,039 $386.40 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$5,866 $5.80 TOTAL BUILDING COST $396,904 $392.20 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 10 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $26,117 $25.81 011 Standard Foundations $26,117 $25.81 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $83,050 $82.07 031 Floor and Roof Construction $83,050 $82.07 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $26,571 $26.26 041 Exterior Walls $26,571 $26.26 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING $32,872 $32.48 051 Roofing $32,872 $32.48 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $146,258 $144.52 111 Site Preparation $98,758 $97.59 112 Site Improvements $47,500 $46.94 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $314,868 $311.13 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 11 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) Perimeter footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (130 lf)14 CY 1,520.72 $21,966 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x2.5' deep (4ea)3 CY 1,245.34 $4,151 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $26,117 ELEMENT - SUBSTRUCTURE 021 SLAB ON GRADE Slab on grade retrofit work Note: Alternate option of slab on grade in lieu of replacing NIC sub floor framing assumed not required TOTAL - 021 SLAB ON GRADE ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor replacement work Replace 8x8 bearers, mount on new footings 120 LF 30.00 $3,600 Replace floor joists, 2x10 joists @ 16" o.c 1,012 SF 17.50 $17,710 Replace floor sheathing, 3/4" plywood 1,012 SF 6.40 $6,477 Anchors, joists and bearers into foundations 18 EA 250.00 $4,500 Roofing replacement work Replace rafters tails (2x6 Rafters @ 3' o.c, sloped)243 SF 30.00 $7,286 Install roof sheathing, 1/2" plywood over skip sheathing 1,214 SF 5.40 $6,558 Repair skip sheathing 1,214 SF 2.50 $3,036 Blocking between rafters at perimeter wall 140 LF 27.50 $3,850 Strengthening structure at walls Replace 4x4 knee braces to side bays 8 EA 240.00 $1,920 Shear wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Shear wall sections)1,048 SF 15.00 $15,720 Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 1,048 SF 4.60 $4,821 Plywood shear nailing 1,048 SF 1.50 $1,572 HDU's, hold downs bolted to sub structure framing 12 EA 150.00 $1,800 Seismic anchors below wall into foundations 12 EA 350.00 $4,200 Alternate option of steel tension rod bracing from roof to NIC foundations not anticipated TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $83,050 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior wall cladding work Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 12 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST 378 SF 17.50 $6,608 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Paint exterior Exterior wood cladding (Paint entire building)1,248 SF 3.23 $4,025 Premium at barn swing doors 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Page & Turnbull Recommendations: Replace doors, windows & locks, ADA, fine grading, planting, pathways Solid heavy duty panel doors on frame with H.D Hinges Single, wide swing 2 EA 3,626.93 $7,254 Locks and associated hardware 2 EA 630.00 $1,260 Wood windows, dual glazed 75 SF 70.65 $5,299 Paint window frames 75 SF 15.00 $1,125 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $26,571 ELEMENT - ROOFING 051 ROOFING Roof replacement Skip sheathing to remain 1,214 SF 3.21 $3,898 Corrugated metal roofing, steel pitch premium 1,214 SF 21.35 $25,922 (saving of $11,960 to project if metall roofing salvaged) Flashings and roof plumbing Metal cap ridge flashings 40 LF 31.84 $1,273 Metal edge rake coping 62 LF 28.51 $1,779 TOTAL - 051 ROOFING $32,872 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Earthwork Excavate existing soil under the building, 24" deep Excavate, small machine (Temporary demo access)82 CY 150.00 $12,369 Machine move dirt to outside building 82 CY 75.00 $6,184 Clean out dirt around posts and structure, by hand 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Site off haul Load tracks 99 CY 25.00 $2,474 Haul dirt 99 CY 60.00 $5,937 Dispose dirt 99 CY 30.00 $2,969 Sub floor replacement work Selective replacement 10% - 20%, old growth wood siding, vertically run Plywood sheathing or underlayment board installed over skip sheathing Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 13 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Remove 8x8 bearers, mounted on grade 120 LF 10.00 $1,200 Remove floor joists, piecemeal in existing structure 1,012 SF 5.00 $5,060 Remove floor sheathing, piecemeal in existing structure 1,012 SF 1.75 $1,771 Roofing replacement work Remove rafter tails, for replacement 243 SF 10.00 $2,429 Skip sheathing to remain Roof replacement Remove corrugated metal roofing 1,214 SF 2.40 $2,915 Remove flashings and roof plumbing Metal cap ridge flashings 40 LF 6.00 $240 Metal edge rake coping 62 LF 5.00 $310 Exterior wall cladding work Remove 10% to 20% old growth wood siding, vertically run 250 SF 5.00 $1,248 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Hazmat demolition Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior 1,430 SF 3.60 $5,148 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 10,000.00 $10,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $98,758 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Page & Turnbull Recommendations: Replace doors, windows & locks, ADA, fine grading, planting, pathways Site accessibility Grading to improve ADA accessibility 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 New hardscape pathway, ADA Compliant 1 LS 27,500.00 $27,500 Planting improvements 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $47,500 On-going maintenance, 20 year period Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 14 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 15 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $151,016 $149.23 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $151,016 $149.23 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$15,102 $14.92 SUBTOTAL $166,118 $164.15 INSURANCE 2.00%$3,322 $3.28 SUBTOTAL $169,440 $167.43 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$2,542 $2.51 TOTAL BUILDING COST $171,982 $169.94 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 16 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $151,016 $149.23 111 Site Preparation $151,016 $149.23 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $151,016 $149.23 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 17 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 1,012 SF 2.00 $2,024 Remove metal flashings 130 LF 5.00 $650 Remove exterior siding 1,500 SF 5.00 $7,500 Remove barn doors 3 EA 300.00 $900 Remove roof sheathing 1,012 SF 2.00 $2,024 Demolish wood framed structure 1,012 SF 20.00 $20,240 Demolish flooring 1,012 SF 5.00 $5,060 Demolish sub floor framing 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Remove wood Load wood debris in trucks 187 CY 20.00 $3,748 Haul wood in trucks 187 CY 40.00 $7,496 Dispose 187 CY 15.00 $2,811 Hazmat demolition Hazmat monitoring and clearance 412 SF 5.00 $2,059 Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 Biologist monitoring 1 LS 3,000.00 $3,000 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $151,016 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 18 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $47,637 $24.06 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $47,637 $24.06 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$4,764 $2.41 SUBTOTAL $52,401 $26.47 INSURANCE 2.00%$1,048 $0.53 SUBTOTAL $53,449 $26.99 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$802 $0.40 TOTAL BUILDING COST $54,250 $27.40 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 19 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $47,637 $24.06 111 Site Preparation $17,245 $8.71 112 Site Improvements $30,392 $15.35 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $47,637 $24.06 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 20 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Approved weed abatement product to perimeter of structure 198 LF 2.50 $495 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $17,245 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)340 LF 67.42 $22,922 Add for barbed wire outrigger 340 LF 7.42 $2,522 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $30,392 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 21 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 22 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $42,979 $21.71 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $27,023 $13.65 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $92,655 $46.80 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $162,657 $82.15 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$8,133 $4.11 SUBTOTAL $170,790 $86.26 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$17,079 $8.63 SUBTOTAL $187,869 $94.88 INSURANCE 2.00%$3,757 $1.90 SUBTOTAL $191,626 $96.78 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$2,874 $1.45 TOTAL BUILDING COST $194,501 $98.23 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 23 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $42,979 $21.71 031 Floor and Roof Construction $42,979 $21.71 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $27,023 $13.65 041 Exterior Walls $27,023 $13.65 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $92,655 $46.80 111 Site Preparation $87,185 $44.03 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities $5,470 $2.76 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $162,657 $82.15 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 24 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Foundation support for building Cribbing per Corp of Engineers - refer to Site Preparation TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Exterior porch Replace porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 17.85 $9,978 Bracing and blocking joists 559 SF 5.00 $2,795 Replace porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 17.50 $9,783 Replace porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 191 LF 22.00 $4,202 Replace porch framing, East side (Allow 50%) Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 402 SF 17.85 $7,176 Bracing and blocking joists 402 SF 5.00 $2,010 Replace porch decking, East side (Allow 50%) Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 402 SF 17.50 $7,035 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $42,979 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building Close off windows, board up with plywood 285 SF 12.50 $3,563 Close off doors, board up with plywood 84 SF 15.00 $1,260 Close off skylights, bpard up with plywood 240 SF 10.00 $2,400 Fill other miscellaneous openings and gaps 1,980 SF 10.00 $19,800 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $27,023 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure - support from underneath Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 25 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Pressure treated wood box cribbing, 6x6 members West elevation, 6' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(24 EA)7 EA 2,160.00 $15,120 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 7 EA 420.00 $2,940 North elevation, 8' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(32 EA)4 EA 2,880.00 $11,520 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 4 EA 420.00 $1,680 South elevation, 6' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(24EA)3 EA 2,160.00 $6,480 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 3 EA 420.00 $1,260 East elevation, 8' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(32 EA)4 EA 2,880.00 $11,520 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 4 EA 420.00 $1,680 East elevation, 12' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(48 EA)1 EA 4,320.00 $4,320 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 1 EA 420.00 $420 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 500.00 $500 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 250.00 $250 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Large tree removal (3 Tan oaks, 2 Madrones) - 5 Total 5 EA 2,500.00 $12,500 Debris removal, grinding 5 EA 1,500.00 $7,500 Remove girdle from Redwood trees, per Arborist report 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 Replacement maternity roost 1 EA 1,500.00 $1,500 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $87,185 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Utility disconnections Disconnect plumbing and provide cap/valve 1 LS 2,380.00 $2,380 Disconnect power and safe off 1 LS 2,210.00 $2,210 Remove obsolete power board 1 LS 880.00 $880 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $5,470 On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 26 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $141,497 $71.46 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $165,195 $83.43 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $36,720 $18.55 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $10,280 $5.19 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL $86,770 $43.82 09 ELECTRICAL $44,150 $22.30 10 EQUIPMENT $15,381 $7.77 11 SITEWORK $84,512 $42.68 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $584,505 $295.20 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$29,225 $14.76 SUBTOTAL $613,730 $309.96 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$33,244 $16.79 SUBTOTAL $646,974 $326.75 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$64,697 $32.68 SUBTOTAL $711,671 $359.43 INSURANCE 2.00%$14,233 $7.19 SUBTOTAL $725,905 $366.62 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$10,889 $5.50 TOTAL BUILDING COST $736,793 $372.12 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 27 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $141,497 $71.46 011 Standard Foundations $141,497 $71.46 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $165,195 $83.43 031 Floor and Roof Construction $165,195 $83.43 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $36,720 $18.55 041 Exterior Walls $36,720 $18.55 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $10,280 $5.19 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes $10,280 $5.19 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL $86,770 $43.82 081 Plumbing $83,470 $42.16 082 H.V.A.C.$3,300 $1.67 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL $44,150 $22.30 091 Standard Electrical $44,150 $22.30 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT $15,381 $7.77 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings $15,381 $7.77 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $84,512 $42.68 111 Site Preparation $24,512 $12.38 112 Site Improvements $35,000 $17.68 113 Site Utilities $25,000 $12.63 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $584,505 $295.20 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 28 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) 46 CY 1,188.13 $54,707 51 CY 1,188.13 $60,621 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x3.5' deep, exterior 14.0 CY 983.81 $13,773 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x3.5' deep, interior 12.6 CY 983.81 $12,396 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $141,497 ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor framing repairs Trim 12" off base of existing timber posts resting on grade 19 EA 340.00 $6,460 Treat seal base of poles 19 EA 320.00 $6,080 Achor base plates with knife plates connected into footing 19 EA 750.00 $14,250 Anchors connecting poles into new footings 19 EA 450.00 $8,550 Floor leveling Systematically level floor to correct settlement Hydraulic jack at new pad locations - see item below Lift/level floor level, hydraulic jack, difficult terrain 990 SF 13.00 $12,870 (Allow 50% floor area) Sub floor strengthening Add sub floor braces at foundation tie beams Treated timber cross braces, 4x10 each side of post Cross braces at Grid 1 & 3, 12' average lengths 192 LF 35.00 $6,720 Fix braces T&B to posts (Hardware & Connections)32 EA 195.00 $6,240 Cross braces at Grid A,B,C,D, 12' average lengths 192 LF 35.00 $6,720 Fix braces T&B to posts (Hardware & Connections)32 EA 195.00 $6,240 Wall/structure strengthening Retrofit 8x8 posts, 8' o.c, inside face of exterior walls 30 EA 432.00 $12,960 Fix posts to logs, simpson 0.22"x15" log screws (x2)30 EA 495.00 $14,850 (Assume 12 logs per post and 24 fixings) Anchor posts, T&B (Roof diaphram & bottom to sub floor)30 EA 425.00 $12,750 Exterior porch Replace porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 17.85 $9,978 Bracing and blocking joists 559 SF 5.00 $2,795 Replace porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 17.50 $9,783 Repair/replace porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 191 LF 12.00 $2,292 Replace porch framing, East side (Allow 50%) Foundation tie beams, stepped, 4'wide x 3.5' deep (Grid 1 & 3) Part hand machine dig/ rebar cages Foundation tie beams, stepped, 4'wide x 3.5' deep (Grid A,B,C,D) Part hand machine dig/ rebar cages Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 29 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 402 SF 17.85 $7,176 Bracing and blocking joists 402 SF 5.00 $2,010 Replace porch decking, East side (Allow 50%) Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 402 SF 17.50 $7,035 Floor system inside building, part replacement 10% T&G flooring, 1x6 fixed over Diagnol sheathing 198 SF 25.00 $4,950 Diagnol sheathing, 1x6 fixed over framing 198 SF 10.00 $1,980 Floor joists, 4"x5-1/2" @ 24" o.c 198 SF 9.50 $1,881 floor beams/bearers, 2"x5-1/2" over posts 50 LF 12.50 $625 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $165,195 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior wall repairs Replace lower 3 rows of logs to perimeter walls, install 194 LF 64.00 $12,416 piecemeal so deconstruct is not required, crafting of new logs to match existing geometries and texture Replace additional 4' at ends of corner logs, staggered laps 256 LF 67.83 $17,364 splicing of new to existing logs Allow to re-secure walls/ stacked logs 194 LF 10.00 $1,940 Allow shoring for the work 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $36,720 ELEMENT - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 062 INTERIOR FINISHES Bathroom renovation New flooring 80 SF 30.00 $2,400 Floor base 33 LF 20.00 $660 Refinish existing wood flooring Finish wood floor with Tung oil 1,900 SF 3.80 $7,220 TOTAL - 062 INTERIOR FINISHES $10,280 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 081 PLUMBING Building Renovation/upgrades Equipment HWU 1 EA 3,250.00 $3,250 Instahot at Kitchen sink 1 EA 1,265.00 $1,265 Oven - Not required per City NIC Stove - Not required per City NIC Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 30 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Septic & potable water systems, Allowance 1 EA 60,000.00 $60,000 Fixtures WC with cistern 1 EA 775.00 $775 Lavatory with faucet 1 EA 640.00 $640 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 825.00 $825 Rough at fixtures WC 1 EA 420.00 $420 Lavatory 1 EA 750.00 $750 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 775.00 $775 Rough plumbing WC 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Lavatory 1 EA 2,800.00 $2,800 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Seismic bracing 6 EA 300.00 $1,800 Seal penetrations 6 EA 120.00 $720 Test and chlorinate water outlets 2 EA 275.00 $550 Filtration and potability tests 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 TOTAL - 081 PLUMBING $83,470 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 082 H.V.A.C. Kitchen renovation Replace kitchen flue 1 LS 1,800.00 $1,800 Stove vent, per city no stove NIC Hot water vent 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 TOTAL - 082 H.V.A.C.$3,300 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL Upgrade/ Renovation work Upgrade/ replace switchboard 1 EA 4,500.00 $4,500 Replace feeders to switchboard 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 Equipment connections 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 Light fixtures (Budget Allowance, as no design)1,980 SF 12.50 $24,750 Conduit and wiring 1,980 SF 5.00 $9,900 TOTAL - 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL $44,150 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 31 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EQUIPMENT 102 FURNISHINGS Kitchen renovation Base cabinet, plastic laminate 20 LF 374.23 $7,485 Countertop, plastic laminate with backsplash 20 LF 114.50 $2,290 Wall cabinet, plastic laminate 20 LF 280.30 $5,606 TOTAL - 102 FURNISHINGS $15,381 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building demolition Electrical demolition Remove existing Knob & Tube wiring 1,980 SF 1.40 $2,772 Exterior porch Remove porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 10.00 $5,590 Remove porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 7.50 $4,193 Remove porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 107 LF 9.50 $1,017 Exterior wall repairs Remove lower 3 rows of logs to perimeter walls (Per level)194 LF 25.00 $4,850 piecemeal method so deconstruct not required Replace additional 4' at ends of corner logs, staggered laps 256 LF 15.00 $3,840 Hazmat demolition Remove linoleum floor to Kitchen floor glue product 300 SF 7.50 $2,250 (Prior to renovating the cabin floor) On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $24,512 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS ADA Improvements, S.W Corner (#10 page 18) Site accessibility Grading to improve ADA accessibility 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 New hardscape pathway, ADA Compliant 1 LS 20,000.00 $20,000 Planting improvements 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $35,000 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 32 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Reconnections, Allowances only Reconnect electrical service to building 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Reconnect / re-run piping for water and sewer to building 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $25,000<-- DO NOT REMOVE THAT X Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 33 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $215,896 $109.04 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $215,896 $109.04 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$21,590 $10.90 SUBTOTAL $237,486 $119.94 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,750 $2.40 SUBTOTAL $242,235 $122.34 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,634 $1.84 TOTAL BUILDING COST $245,869 $124.18 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 34 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $215,896 $109.04 111 Site Preparation $215,896 $109.04 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $215,896 $109.04 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 35 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 2,633 SF 2.00 $5,267 Remove doors, single 6 EA 100.00 $600 Remove roof sheathing 2,633 SF 2.00 $5,267 Demolish wood framed structure 1,980 SF 20.00 $39,600 Demolish flooring (Building and Decking)3,840 SF 2.50 $9,600 Demolish sub floor framing with crawl space (Building and 3,840 SF 5.00 $19,200 Decking) Demolish concrete foundations to building (Minimal)3,840 SF 2.50 $9,600 Demolish stone and masonry fireplace 720 SF 25.00 $18,000 Demolish concrete foundations to fireplace 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Dispose stone and masonry Move out of building, hand 27 CY 150.00 $4,000 Load trucks 27 CY 40.00 $1,067 Haul debris 27 CY 50.00 $1,333 Dispose/recycle debris 27 CY 30.00 $800 Dispose concrete (Foundations) Load trucks 53 CY 75.00 $3,956 Haul debris 53 CY 50.00 $2,637 Dispose/recycle debris 53 CY 25.00 $1,319 Remove wood Load wood debris in trucks 293 CY 15.00 $4,400 Haul wood in trucks 293 CY 30.00 $8,800 Dispose 293 CY 15.00 $4,400 Hazmat demolition Hazmat monitoring and clearance 300 SF 5.00 $1,500 Remove linoleum floor to Kitchen floor glue product 300 SF 7.50 $2,250 (Prior to renovating the cabin floor) Biologist monitoring 1 LS 4,800.00 $4,800 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $215,896 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 36 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $56,128 $29.36 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $56,128 $29.36 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$5,613 $2.94 SUBTOTAL $61,741 $32.29 INSURANCE 2.00%$1,235 $0.65 SUBTOTAL $62,976 $32.94 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$945 $0.49 TOTAL BUILDING COST $63,920 $33.43 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 37 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $56,128 $29.36 111 Site Preparation $21,245 $11.11 112 Site Improvements $34,883 $18.24 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $56,128 $29.36 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 38 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Remove trees 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $21,245 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)400 LF 67.42 $26,968 Add for barbed wire outrigger 400 LF 7.42 $2,967 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $34,883 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 39 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 40 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $3,500 $1.83 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $41,380 $21.64 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $129,728 $67.85 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $174,608 $91.32 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$8,730 $4.57 SUBTOTAL $183,338 $95.89 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$18,334 $9.59 SUBTOTAL $201,672 $105.48 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,033 $2.11 SUBTOTAL $205,706 $107.59 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,086 $1.61 TOTAL BUILDING COST $208,791 $109.20 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 41 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $3,500 $1.83 031 Floor and Roof Construction $3,500 $1.83 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $41,380 $21.64 041 Exterior Walls $41,380 $21.64 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $129,728 $67.85 111 Site Preparation $129,728 $67.85 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $174,608 $91.32 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 42 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Roof repairs Repair shed roof along south 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $3,500 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building Close off doors, board up with plywood 112 SF 15.00 $1,680 Fill other miscellaneous openings and gaps 1,912 SF 2.50 $4,780 Rehab windows Repair window frames 80 LF 50.00 $4,000 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 80 LF 45.00 $3,600 Clear lexan view panel 258 SF 40.00 $10,320 Paint and seal window frames 80 LF 15.00 $1,200 Strengthening at exterior walls Wood bracing, 2x10 with screw fixings Interior face exterior wall (10 locations)300 LF 30.00 $9,000 Fix bracing, screw connections (4 points per location)10 EA 680.00 $6,800 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $41,380 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure - support from underneath Pressure treated wood box cribbing, 6x6 members Exterior, (av) 3' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(30EA)25 EA 1,080.00 $27,000 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 25 EA 420.00 $10,500 Interior, (av) 3' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(20EA)20 EA 1,080.00 $21,600 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 20 EA 420.00 $8,400 Building demolition Remove dilapidated shed 84 SF 22.50 $1,890 Hazmat demolition Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 43 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Hazmat monitoring and clearance 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 Remove wallboard for bracing walls, Hazmat 1,000 SF 4.50 $4,500 Collate and dispose material 1,000 SF 1.50 $1,500 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior to match doors 2,256 SF 3.60 $8,122 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Remove trees 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $129,728 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 44 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $53,644 $28.06 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $115,711 $60.52 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $78,956 $41.29 05 ROOFING $24,238 $12.68 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $3,060 $1.60 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL $83,470 $43.66 09 ELECTRICAL $42,960 $22.47 10 EQUIPMENT $7,690 $4.02 11 SITEWORK $125,210 $65.49 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $534,939 $279.78 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$26,747 $13.99 SUBTOTAL $561,686 $293.77 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$30,425 $15.91 SUBTOTAL $592,111 $309.68 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$59,211 $30.97 SUBTOTAL $651,322 $340.65 INSURANCE 2.00%$13,026 $6.81 SUBTOTAL $664,348 $347.46 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$9,965 $5.21 TOTAL BUILDING COST $674,313 $352.67 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 45 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $53,644 $28.06 011 Standard Foundations $53,644 $28.06 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $115,711 $60.52 031 Floor and Roof Construction $115,711 $60.52 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $78,956 $41.29 041 Exterior Walls $78,956 $41.29 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING $24,238 $12.68 051 Roofing $24,238 $12.68 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $3,060 $1.60 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes $3,060 $1.60 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL $83,470 $43.66 081 Plumbing $83,470 $43.66 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL $42,960 $22.47 091 Standard Electrical $42,960 $22.47 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT $7,690 $4.02 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings $7,690 $4.02 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $125,210 $65.49 111 Site Preparation $100,210 $52.41 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities $25,000 $13.08 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $534,939 $279.78 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 46 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) Perimeter footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (184 LF)20 CY 1,729.72 $35,363 Interior footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (40 LF)4 CY 1,729.72 $7,688 Spread/pad footings under posts, 2'x2'x2.5' deep (20 EA)7 CY 1,430.02 $10,593 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $53,644 ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor framing Replace crawl space posts, 4x4x N.E 4' high 20 EA 400.00 $8,000 Exterior cripple wall - see Exterior walls Flooring Replace missing/ damaged 1x6 floor planks (Provisional 50 sf)50 SF 22.50 $1,125 Steel frame clips to connect joists, girders and posts 20 EA 75.00 $1,500 Retrofit sister 2x8 joists ea side girders (double) @48" o.c 1,008 LF 25.00 $25,188 Premium to pre drill and screw sister joists (or bolt)1,008 LF 7.50 $7,556 Exterior cripple wall - see Exterior walls Strengthening structure at walls Shear wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Shear wall) Allow 100LF 800 SF 15.00 $12,000 Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 800 SF 4.60 $3,680 Plywood shear nailing 800 SF 1.50 $1,200 HDU's, hold downs bolted to sub structure framing 20 EA 150.00 $3,000 Seismic anchors below wall into foundations 20 EA 350.00 $7,000 Roof framing Retrofit x2 Ridge beams, span between rafters 117 LF 50.00 $5,850 Connect hardware ends of ridge beams 59 EA 115.00 $6,785 Blocking between rafters, exterior perimeter walls 236 LF 17.50 $4,130 Blocking between rafters, interior walls 153 LF 17.50 $2,678 Retrofit collar ties to supplement existing 59 EA 77.50 $4,534 Roofing replacement work Replace part rafters, 2x8 Rafters@ 2'o.c (Allowance, 20%)402 SF 29.50 $11,847 New roof sheathing, 5/8", pitched roof 2,008 SF 4.80 $9,638 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $115,711 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior walls Cripple wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Cripple wall)582 SF 15.00 $8,730 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 47 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 582 SF 4.60 $2,677 Sill/ bearer, 3x4 bolted to foundations, 24" o.c 200 LF 62.50 $12,500 New wood siding, 1x12 to match historical planks, cripple wall North elevation, N.E 3.5' high 224 SF 22.50 $5,040 East & West Elevation, N.E 2.5' high 230 SF 22.50 $5,175 South Elevation, N.E 2' high 128 SF 22.50 $2,880 HDU's, hold downs bolted to bearer, 4' o.c 50 EA 125.00 $6,250 Exterior wall cladding work Replace siding,1x12 salvaged old-growth redwood, Allowance 150 SF 35.00 $5,250 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Rehab windows Repair window frames 138 LF 50.00 $6,900 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 138 LF 45.00 $6,210 Replace glass to windows 146 SF 30.00 $4,380 Paint and seal window frames 138 LF 15.00 $2,070 Rehab doors, restore to working condition with repair and paint Exterior 4 EA 750.00 $3,000 Interior, rooms 4 EA 400.00 $1,600 Interior, cupboards 2 EA 250.00 $500 Paint exterior Exterior wood cladding, prepare and paint 2,448 SF 2.37 $5,794 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $78,956 ELEMENT - ROOFING 051 ROOFING Roof Replacement Asphalt shingles (standard strip shingles)1,912 SF 4.87 $9,317 Adhered membrane 1,912 SF 1.72 $3,282 Rigid insulation, 2"1,912 SF 2.77 $5,295 Flashings and roof plumbing Asphalt shingle ridge cap flashing 117 LF 6.39 $747 Asphalt shingle valley flashing 25 LF 5.88 $147 Metal eave edge flashing 147 LF 23.47 $3,450 Raked metal roof end flashing 85 LF 23.47 $2,000 TOTAL - 051 ROOFING $24,238 ELEMENT - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 062 INTERIOR FINISHES Bathroom renovation New flooring 80 SF 30.00 $2,400 Floor base 33 LF 20.00 $660 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 48 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST TOTAL - 062 INTERIOR FINISHES $3,060 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 081 PLUMBING Building Renovation/upgrades Equipment HWU 1 EA 3,250.00 $3,250 Instahot at Kitchen sink 1 EA 1,265.00 $1,265 Oven - Not required per City NIC Stove - Not required per City NIC Septic & potable water systems, Allowance 1 EA 60,000.00 $60,000 Fixtures WC with cistern 1 EA 775.00 $775 Lavatory with faucet 1 EA 640.00 $640 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 825.00 $825 Rough at fixtures WC 1 EA 420.00 $420 Lavatory 1 EA 750.00 $750 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 775.00 $775 Rough plumbing WC 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Lavatory 1 EA 2,800.00 $2,800 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Seismic bracing 6 EA 300.00 $1,800 Seal penetrations 6 EA 120.00 $720 Test and chlorinate water outlets 2 EA 275.00 $550 Filtration and potability tests 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 TOTAL - 081 PLUMBING $83,470 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL Upgrade/ Renovation work Upgrade/ replace switchboard 1 EA 4,500.00 $4,500 Replace feeders to swicthboard 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 Equipment connections 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 Light fixtures (Budget Allowance, as no design)1,912 SF 12.50 $23,900 Conduit and wiring 1,912 SF 5.00 $9,560 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 49 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST TOTAL - 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL $42,960 ELEMENT - EQUIPMENT 102 FURNISHINGS Kitchen renovation Base cabinet, plastic laminate 10 LF 374.23 $3,742 Countertop, plastic laminate with backsplash 10 LF 114.50 $1,145 Wall cabinet, plastic laminate 10 LF 280.30 $2,803 TOTAL - 102 FURNISHINGS $7,690 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Demolition, piecemeal at building Remove roof shingles 1,912 SF 2.60 $4,971 Remove roof underlayment 1,912 SF 1.20 $2,294 Remove wood siding to replace, Allowance 150 sf 150 SF 5.00 $750 Remove flashings and roof plumbing Asphalt shingle ridge cap flashing 117 LF 4.00 $468 Asphalt shingle valley flashing 25 LF 4.00 $100 Metal eave edge flashing 147 LF 6.00 $882 Raked metal roof end flashing 85 LF 6.50 $554 Sub floor framing repairs Remove crawl space posts, N.E 4' high 20 EA 390.00 $7,800 Remove sub floor exterior wall paneling 582 SF 12.50 $7,275 Flooring Remove missing/ damaged 1x6 floor planks (Provisional 50 sf)50 SF 10.00 $500 Building demolition Remove dilapidated shed 84 SF 22.50 $1,890 Roofing replacement work Remove damaged rafters, 2x8 Rafters @ 2' o.c, sloped (Allowance, 20%)402 SF 12.50 $5,020 Remove roof sheathing, 5/8", pitched roof 2,008 SF 2.40 $4,819 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 Replacement maternity roost 1 EA 1,500.00 $1,500 Hazmat demolition Set up - contain building 1 LS 2,560.00 $2,560 Hazmat monioring and clearance 2 DYS 2,400.00 $4,800 ACM vinyl flooring with ACM mastic 360 SF 8.71 $3,136 Dispose vinyl product 360 SF 2.00 $720 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 50 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Wallboard with joint compound 3,700 SF 4.50 $16,650 Dispose wallboard product with ACM joint compound 3,700 SF 1.50 $5,550 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $100,210 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Reconnections, Allowances only Reconnect electrical service to building 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Reconnect / correct piping into site to building 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $25,000<-- DO NOT REMOVE THAT X Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 51 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $204,845 $107.14 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $204,845 $107.14 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$20,485 $10.71 SUBTOTAL $225,330 $117.85 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,507 $2.36 SUBTOTAL $229,836 $120.21 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,448 $1.80 TOTAL BUILDING COST $233,284 $122.01 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 52 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $204,845 $107.14 111 Site Preparation $204,845 $107.14 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $204,845 $107.14 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 53 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Remove metal flashings 232 LF 5.00 $1,160 Remove exterior siding 2,472 SF 5.00 $12,360 Remove doors, single 12 EA 100.00 $1,200 Remove roof sheathing 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Demolish wood framed structure 1,912 SF 15.00 $28,680 Demolish flooring 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Demolish sub floor framing 1,912 SF 3.50 $6,692 Remove dead tree 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Remove large trees hanging over property 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Recycle wood Load wood debris in trucks 212 CY 25.00 $5,311 Haul wood in trucks 212 CY 50.00 $10,622 Dispose/recycle wood 212 CY 35.00 $7,436 Hazmat demolition Set up - contain building 1 LS 2,560.00 $2,560 Consultant monitoring, inspections and clearance 2 DYS 2,400.00 $4,800 ACM vinyl flooring with ACM mastic 360 SF 8.71 $3,136 Dispose vinyl product 360 SF 2.00 $720 Wallboard with joint compound 3,700 SF 4.50 $16,650 Dispose wallboard product with ACM joint compound 3,700 SF 0.75 $2,775 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 Biologist monitoring 1 LS 4,800.00 $4,800 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $204,845 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 54 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 BEATTY PROPERTY HOME Structure Stabilization Basis of Design Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara, California District Project Number: MAA22-004 December 20, 2019 Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Prepared By: Steven Patton, SE, Senior Associate Matt Frantz, SE, Associate Principal Mark Moore, SE, Principal-in-Charge March 13, 2020 DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS BASIS OF DESIGN SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Consultants and Exhibits ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Permitting Agency .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Governing Building Code ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Architectural Condition Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 3 Structural Condition Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 4 Geotechnical Investigation ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Hazardous Materials Survey ................................................................................................................................... 5 Archaeological Survey ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Arborist Report ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Wildlife Survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Site Access Constraints ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Design Alternatives .................................................................................................................................................. 6 EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Exhibit B: Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers Exhibit C: Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers Exhibit D: Asbestos and Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. Exhibit E: Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated Exhibit F: Topographic Site Plan by Sandis Exhibit G: Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers Exhibit H: Arborist Report by Kielty Arborist Services LLC Exhibit I: Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 1 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA BASIS OF DESIGN SUMMARY Introduction The Beatty Property Home is located on a 55-acre site just east of Lexington Reservoir in the Sierra Azul Preserve and is owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The property can easily be accessed from Alma Bridge Road at the District gate. The Beatty Property Home is a wood-framed residential building originally constructed between 1866 and 1877. The home is currently unoccupied, with all of the doors and windows boarded up. Figure 1. Project Area Map The exterior of the structure is covered by a combination of horizontal siding and vertical siding with battens . The primary structure is wood rafters with collar ties supported by wood bearings walls and posts supported at grade. The gable roof is comprised of 1x horizontal lumber decking supporting asphalt shingle roofing. The building is eligible for individual inclusion in the California Register of Historic Places and qualifies as a historical resource. The lack of use and years of deferred maintenance have left the Beatty Property Home in poor condition. The District has initiated a project to assess the Beatty Property Home, along with the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin and White Barn. The project is being performed in two phases: • Phase 1: Site reconnaissance and structure assessment • Phase 2: Improvement selection and construction documents This report summarizes the findings and recommendations from the Phase 1 tasks including an assessment of the existing conditions, Basis of Design, conceptual design alternatives, and cost estimates. The proposed alternatives include: DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 2 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a limited use retreat space. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Each alternative can include interpretive signage if or once the site is accessible to the public. Consultants and Exhibits The findings and recommendations contained in this summary are based on the following reports, which are provided as Exhibits: • Exhibit A: Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations by Page & Turnbull, Inc. • Exhibit B: Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers • Exhibit C: Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers • Exhibit D: Asbestos & Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. • Exhibit E: Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated • Exhibit F: Topographic Site Plan by Sandis • Exhibit G: Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers • Exhibit H: Arborist Report by Kielty Arborist Services LLC • Exhibit I: Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI Permitting Agency The permitting agency for this building is the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development (County). A preliminary coordination meeting was performed with the County to discuss the project. The County requested that a follow-up meeting be held once an option is selected by the District. In addition, the County of Santa Clara Historic Resource Planner stated that the proposed option must be reviewed and approved by The Historic Heritage Commission (HHC). The County did not provide definitive guidance on the permitting schedule as this is dependent on the selected option, but the permitting and review schedule is expected to increase along with the scope of rehabilitation. For instance, the County stated that installation of a fence could likely be approved with an over-the-counter review, whereas rehabilitation for occupancy of the interior of the building would require a formal submittal review process. Demolition of the building or any significant alterations to t he historic fabric would require greater review time by the HHC. Regulatory Requirements The following regulatory contexts, summarized here from Exhibit A, were investigated and considered for this building: • National Register of Historic Places o The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. The Beatty Property Home is not currently listed in the National Register and has not been evaluated for eligibility. • California Register of Historic Resources o The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Based on a DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 3 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA previous assessment, the Beatty Property Home was determined to be eligible for the California Register. • Secretary of The Interior’s Standards o The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) establish the professional standards for work on historic buildings receiving funding assistance through the Historic Preservation Fund authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act. The Standards and associated guidelines are also often adopted by state and local permitting agencies for the purpose of reviewing pot ential projects involving historic resources. Governing Building Code Since the building is eligible for the California Register, the California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24) is the governing building co de. As discussed in Exhibit A, the code provides performance-oriented rather than prescriptive provisions for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, and other associated work to enable the continued u se of historical resources. The code is intended to recognize the unique construction problems and obstacles to meeting code requirements of new construction when executing projects on historic resources that may have been constructed per earlier codes, or without any building code at all. Architectural Condition Assessment The results of the architectural conditions assessment, detailed in Exhibit A, is summarized below. Windows All windows are boarded up with plywood on the exterior leaving part of the framing visible from the outside. Visually they appear to be in fair condition, in need only of replacement of broken glass and painting of the wooden parts, though verification should be made to the operable parts of each to assess the need or lack thereof for more extensive work. Exterior Doors All doors are boarded up with plywood on the exterior leaving part of the framing visible from the outside. Visible portions of doors appear to be in good condition though some glass pieces are missing. Exterior Wood Cladding The exterior wood cladding is composed of a vertical board and batten system trimmed at the top and bottom by horizontal boards, with a second layer of horizontal cladding on portions of the south and west façade. The trim is missing in some sections. The cladding is generally in fair to poor condition, showing evident signs of water damage, weathering deterioration and wood decoloring. Sections of cladding that are partially protected by surrounding trees are in good to fair condition. Foundations The foundations for the building were not accessible making their conditions unknown, although the general levelness of the floors and plumbness of the walls indicates no significant failure of the foundations. Porch The current porch is in poor shape, and the westernmost section is part ially collapsed. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 4 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Roof Cladding The original roof cladding has been substituted by asphalt shingles. It appears to be in good condition on the exterior, although there are signs of humidity and possible water infiltration where the roof structure and slopes from the different building sections join. Floors The original floors appear to be fir planks covered by resilient carpet over patterned tar paper, and a more modern resilient flooring in the bathroom and kitchen and pantry. The parlor and the corridor are carpeted. Visible areas of the base wood are in fair condition, showing some general darkening where not covered by the floor finishes, and requiring some maintenance. Several floor boards are missing in the storage room. Interior Partitions The only original partition clearly visible is the one separating the dining room from the parlor, and is in good condition where visible. Other partitions are in good condition in the visible areas. Most walls have an interior finish of cardboard drywall making unknown the exact current conditions of the underlying walls, though they appear to be in sound conditions. More extensive investigation is recommended to verify conditions or need of any treatments. Beneath the cardboard drywall there are traces of decorative paintings or painted paper in the living room walls, which would require more extensive research to determine its condition and historic value. Roof Framing The roof framing is mostly concealed making its condition generally unknown. The visible sections of roof framing through openings in the ceiling show high levels of decoloring, humidity and rot of the original sheathing, and of parts of the framing structure. Further evaluation is recommended prior to choosing treatment. It is also necessary to consider that these ceiling openings serve as exit points for several bats that apparently have their nesting grounds between the roof and ceiling of the house, which should be addressed prior to any work. Structural Condition Assessment The results of the structural condition assessment are detailed in the report in Exhibit B. The structural assessment includes a review of the existing materials conditions as well as the expected performance of the structure under seismic and gravity loading. Overview The structure appears to be in generally poor to fair structural condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. Roof Framing The roofing is composed of asphalt shingles supported directly on 1x horizontal lumber decking and 1x framing that spans between the roof rafters. The roof rafters are spaced approximately 36” on center and cle ar span from the ridge to the exterior walls. 1x6 collar ties span between the rafters below the ridge to help resist horizontal thrust and allows the rafters to span between exterior bearing walls. There does not appear to be a ridge beam or ridge board. Walls Walls above the ground floor are typically framed with horizontal 1x siding on the exterior, and vertical 1x to 2x siding on the interior face. The original interior partition is framed with 1x wood siding as well. Wood siding is missing in some locations, creating openings in the walls allowing water and pests to enter the building. The crawlspace walls are framed with 3x posts spaced at approximately 4 feet on center, with exterior horizontal or vertical siding. The posts and siding are in ground contact along the bottom edge. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 5 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Floor Framing At the ground floor level, the flooring is composed of 1x horizontal wood planking spanning between 2x floor joists spaced at approximately 16” on center. The floor joists span between 3x flat girders that are s upported by 3x wood posts. The wood posts are either supported directly on grade or sit on a flat wood sleeper that is directly on grade. No blocking, hardware or positive connections were observed between the joists, girders and posts. The observable portions of the floor framing appeared in fair condition, except for the moisture damaged framing in contact with the ground. Foundations The foundations for this structure are limited to wood posts that bear either directly on grade, or on a small wood sleeper on grade. Some posts may be embedded an unknown distance into the ground. Moisture damage was observed at several posts in contact with the ground. Seismic Force-Resisting System The lateral system of the building is not a “codified” system identified under the current building code but has been defined as light-framed (wood) walls rated for shear resistance for the purposes of this assessment. The horizontal lumber roof diaphragm transmits roof horizontal loads to the wood siding walls below. Perimet er walls and one interior wall are present as lateral force-resisting elements. Some diagonal wood bracing is also present within the crawlspace cripple walls to help resist lateral loads. Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation report has been prepared by Romig Engineers, which is in Exhibit C. Based on the geotechnical investigation, the primary geotechnical concerns at the site (and the reference page in the geotechnical investigation report) are: • The potential for severe ground shaking at the site due to moderate to large earthquakes in the area (page 6). The bottom of all footing excavations should be cleaned of loose or soft soil and/or disturbed bedrock or debris. The bottom of all footing excavations should be cleaned of loose, soft, overly moist or collapsible soil and debris. A member of the geotechnical engineer’s staff should observe the excavations to confirm that they have at least the minimum recommended dimensions, are founded in competent residual soil or bedrock, and have been properly cleaned prior to placing concrete forms and reinforcing steel. If existing fill soil, colluvial soil, or disturbed bedrock is encountered at the foundation bearing depth, the geotechnical field representative will require these materials to be removed and a deeper embedment depth provided before reinforcing steel and concrete is placed. Hazardous Materials Survey An Asbestos and Lead Survey was performed by Terracon, which is documented in the report in Exhibit D. In summary, asbestos containing materials and lead containing paint were identified in the tested materials. All removal of Asbestos-Containing Materials including non-friable materials left in the building must be conducted by a licensed and registered asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with 8CCR1529 and the BAAQMD Regulation 11 Rule 2. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Archaeological Survey An archaeological survey is not required for all Alternatives and was therefore not included in this Assessment. An archaeological survey would only be performed for Alternatives 3 and 4. Should these alternatives be selected, the survey would be performed concurrent with the documentation for that phase. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 6 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Arborist Report Based on the Arborist investigation performed by Kielty Arborist Services, which is in Exhibit H, one Redwood tree, approximately 12 feet from the northeast corner of the building, and one Laurel tree, approximately 28 feet from the northwest corner of the building, are in poor condition and removal is recommended for both. Tree irrigation is not recommended for the existing Oak trees, and a Tree Protection Plan is outlined. Wildlife Survey A wildlife survey was performed by Swaim Biological, Incorporated, on June 19 and June 28, 2019, which is in Exhibit E, to identify special status mammal species in and around the building. The structure provides highly suitable bat roosting habitat. Based on the observed presence of bat signs throughout the structure, observed bats roosting within, and bats emerging from the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat signs were observed throughout the structure and natural nests observ ed outside. Recommendations to address the presence of wildlife include: • Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities. • Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1 of SBI’s report. The bat wintering period is generally from November 16 through February 15 , no building or tree work should be conducted during this time if bats are present. • Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Depart ment of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. • Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW. • Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2 of SBI’s report. • Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. Site Access Constraints The following items were considered when developing cost estimates for BOD alternatives and should be considered for future planning of repairs and maintenance for the Beatty Property Home: • Wildlife Habitat – The presence of protected species in the area requires that personnel and visitors to the site follow District guidelines and advisory documents for access. District access permits are r equired for this site. Bird nesting season is February 15 to August 30. Bat maternity season is from April 15 to August 31. Torpor season is from November 15 to February 15. Construction restrictions will be in effect for these times. A biological monitor is required to be present during the first phases of construction or demolition to ensure bats are not harmed. Exclusion may also be warranted depending on the type of work taking place. Design Alternatives Based on the current observable condition of the structure, the building’s structural integrity is compromised, and multiple safety hazards are present. Access to the building and its proximity should be limited to District staff and consultants only until one of the following options is implemented. Four alternatives are explored to address the existing condition of the structure, which range from minimal work with restricted public access to a complete rehabilitation to allow for re -occupancy. Demolition is also explored as an option. Cost estimates have been developed for each alternative to assist the District with decision making. Alternative 1: Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a d istance. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 7 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Recommendations: • Install a secure chain-link fence, a minimum of 8-foot-tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the Distr ict’s guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 400 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building and porches to provide a safety “buffer” space in case collapse of the framing occurs in the future. Along the north side of the building, the fence will likely be required to be closer to the building (approximately 10 feet away) due to the steep slope conditions. Several trees will be within the fence perimeter and will require coordination with the Tree Protection Plan during installation. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. Install signage at building and entry gates. • Remove one Redwood tree and one Laurel tree that are in poor condition. Prune the Oak trees as outlined in the Tree Protection Plan included in the Arborist Report by Kielty Arborist Services (see Exhibit H). • Additional factors may need to be considered regarding the recommended lifespan of this alternative. The estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $63,920. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit I. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 2: Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. The recommended stabilization methods specifically target only the gravity related structural deficiencies and would not allow for re-occupancy of the building. The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. Recommendations: • Install pressure treated wood cribbing or shims to shore all post and bearing wall locations around perimeter that have observable moisture damage or are no longer in contact with the grade below. Stabilization shoring installed in a minimum 2x pattern per Corp of Engineers (or equivalent) is recommended for the cribbing shores. • All failed or failing portions of the existing shed roof along the south should be repaired, replaced in -kind or demolished entirely where permissible to minimize area required to be maintained by the District. • The dilapidated shed at the northeast corner, which appears to not be part of the original construction, should be dismantled and removed. • Diagonal 2x8 wood bracing with screwed connections should be installed on the interior face of the exterior walls and at cripple walls directly below (assume 10 linear feet along each exterior wall – 100 linear feet total). • Under this option, if it is not desirable for the perimeter access to the site to be fenced in per Alternative 1, it is recommended that all 17 existing glazed openings and doors around the exterior of the building should be assumed to be permanently covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. • Remove peeling, loose lead-containing paint from the exterior. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Repaint the exterior to match the original color. • Areas and/or elements of the building envelope that are deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced in - kind to match the original elements and construction techniques. Character-defining features such as the board-and batten siding, wood windows, and wood doors in particular should be repaired so that the building can best convey its historic form and significance. • Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 8 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA a. Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b. Remove furnishings, trash and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc) and ensure it is broom-clean. c. Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d. Secure or modify utilities and mechanical systems. e. Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection, including • Remove one Redwood tree and one Laurel tree that are in poor condition. Prune the Oak trees as outlined in the Tree Protection Plan included in the Arborist Report by Kielty Arborist Services (see Exhibit H). • Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). • Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. The estimated cost for Alternative 2 is $208,791. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit I. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 3: Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a limited use retreat space. The California Historic Building Code (CHBC) would be utilized to define the design criteria. Recommendations: • While the Beatty Property Home is currently unoccupied, the Basis of Design assumes that the current occupancy is classified as Residential. The maximum occupancy of the structure was not investigated but assumed to be (5) based on the number of bedrooms. If the building was to be repurposed for use as District staff housing, the requirements would essentially be the same as for a retreat, meeting space, or hiker’s shelter. • Provide new structural members including: o New concrete foundation: perimeter strip footing, interior strip footing, interior spread footings o Crawlspace framing: replace existing interior posts, install perimeter cripple wall studs and plywood wall sheathing. o Roof framing: replace existing planking with plywood sheathing, install new ridg e boards and blocking, reinforce existing collar ties, replace failed members in kind, install new roofing. o Wall framing: install plywood wall sheathing on interior at portions of perimeter wall, install new perimeter stud wall framing at portions of perimeter wall, install holdowns at new plywood wall segment ends o Floor framing: replace missing or damage floor planking, install framing hardware, reinforce existing floor girders • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. • Dismantle and remove the dilapidated shed at the northeast corner, which appears to not be part of the original construction. • Remove the asbestos-containing material and lead-containing paint in accordance with provisions specified in the Asbestos and Lead Survey (Exhibit D). • In addition to the general repairs that would be required to address the deterioration of various building components noted in the Conditions Assessment and the repair work described in Alternative 2, the following work should be anticipated for cost estimation purposes: o Upgrade and reconnect plumbing and electrical service. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 9 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA o Construct a new septic and potable water system. A well was observed approximately 200 feet southeast of the building but was not investigated and consumption safety is uncertain. The well will require testing to determine continued use. o Install new flooring and toilet, lavatory, and shower/bath in the bathroom. o Assuming a functional kitchen is desired for the new uses, install new cabinetry, a new sink and fixtures, and a new oven and stove. • Additional annual maintenance costs will include, but is not limited to, access maintenance, utilities (power, trash, etc.), pest and rodent management, tree maintenance, security an d insurance. • A formal accessibility review was not part of the scope of this investigation; however, the following items were not compliant with the Building Code and should thoughtfully be designed for to not compromise the character-defining features of the building: o None of the existing doors are level with exterior grade o Clear space at building doors is less than the 29-1/2” allowed by Code o There are multiple level changes of at least one step inside the building • Remove one Redwood tree and one Laurel tree that are in poor condition. Prune the Oak trees as outlined in the Tree Protection Plan included in the Arborist Report by Kielty Arborist Services (see Exhibit H). • Remove wildlife waste products. • Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). • Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be acces sed by District staff in the event of security concerns. The estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $674,313. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit I. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 4: Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Recommendations: • Demolishing the structure may require additional processes to obtain demolition permits. • Removal of all hazardous materials prior to demolition of the building (See Exhibit D). • The site landscaping would be rehabilitated to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. • Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre-demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site. • The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. • Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this option is dependent upon regulatory approval process. The estimated cost for Alternative 4 is $233,284. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit I. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT A Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations By Page & Turnbull, Inc. DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home November 22, 2019 - FINAL Page & Turnbull, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................2 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................2 GUIDING PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES AND CONTEXT......................................3 THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES...............................................................................3 Criteria.....................................................................................................................................................3 Integrity...................................................................................................................................................3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................4 Criteria.....................................................................................................................................................4 Integrity...................................................................................................................................................4 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS......................................................................................5 Preservation:...........................................................................................................................................5 Rehabilitation:........................................................................................................................................5 Restoration:............................................................................................................................................5 Reconstruction:......................................................................................................................................5 Standards for Preservation:..................................................................................................................6 Standards for Rehabilitation................................................................................................................6 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE..........................................................................................7 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE...............................................................................................7 BEATTY PROPERTY HOME...........................................................................................9 CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS..........................................................................................................................9 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES............................................................................................................9 Exterior:..................................................................................................................................................9 Interior:...................................................................................................................................................9 PERMITTING AGENCY – AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION....................................................9 EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................9 Exterior.................................................................................................................................................10 Interior..................................................................................................................................................12 PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION.......................................................................21 DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 2 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section of the Basis of Design report is to evaluate the existing architectural conditions and the potential impacts and implications of the Beatty Property Home in the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The four proposed project alternatives/treatments are generally stated as follows: 1. Restrict Perimeter Access to the Structure, such that the public cannot enter the surrounding area, and remove or stabilize potential public safety hazards. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes to allow perimeter access for exterior viewing and interpretation. Retain structure for interpretive purposes. 3. Improve (Rehabilitate) the structure to be repurposed for a compatible occupancy. 4. Demolish the structure. METHODOLOGY To evaluate the existing conditions of the three subject buildings, Page & Turnbull conducted visual conditions assessments and documented the existing conditions with digital photography. The conditions were evaluated based on the following rating system of good, fair, and poor conditions: Good (G) The building element / feature is intact, structurally sound, and performing its intended purpose. The element / feature needs no repair or rehabilitation, but only routine or preventative maintenance. Fair (F) The building element / feature shows signs of aging and one or more of the following conditions is present: a) There are early signs of wear, failure, or deterioration though the element / feature and its components are generally structurally sound and performing their intended purpose; or b) There is failure of one individual component. Poor (P) The building element / feature shows signs of deterioration and one or more the following conditions is present: a) The element / feature is no longer performing its intended purpose; or b) Feature is missing; or c) Deterioration or damage affects more than 30% of the element / feature; or d) The element / feature shows signs of imminent failure or breakdown. Unknown (U) The element / feature was not accessible for assessment or not enough information is available to make an evaluation. Evaluation of the proposed project alternatives took into account the historic significance of the Beatty Property Home, and the applicable preservation principles and context, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, , the 2016 California Building Code, the 2016 California Existing Building Code, and the 2016 California Historical Building Code. Evaluation of the structural conditions and recommendations for the remediation of structural deficiencies was performed by ZFA. Refer to the assessment report and treatment recommendations produced by ZFA for all structural considerations and impacts. 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a limited use retreat space. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 3 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. GUIDING PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES AND CONTEXT The following section describes the preservation principles and context that are applicable to the Beatty Property Home. For analysis and considerations related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it may apply to the proposed project alternatives, additional studies may need to be performed. THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of “exceptional importance,” or if they are contributors to a potential historic district. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. There are four basic criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. Criteria Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity Once a resource has been identified as being potentially eligible for listing in the National Register, its historic integrity must be evaluated. The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. These aspects are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred; Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s); Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property; Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form the historic property; DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 4 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory; Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and the historic property. In order to be determined eligible for listing, these aspects must closely relate to the resource’s significance and must be intact. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. Criteria Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Resources eligible for the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Integrity The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National Register. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the California Register and the National Register. There is a critical distinction between the two registers, however, and that is the degree of integrity that a property can retain and still be considered eligible for listing. According to the California Office of Historic Preservation: It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 5 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant or historical information or specific data.1 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (hereafter “Standards”) establish the professional standards for work on historic buildings receiving funding assistance through the Historic Preservation Fund authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act. The Standards and associated guidelines are also often adopted by state and local permitting agencies for the purpose of reviewing potential projects involving historic resources. The Standards define four approaches to the treatment of historic properties, adapted below. A variety of factors contribute to the selection of an appropriate treatment, including the historic significance, physical condition, proposed use, and intended interpretation of the subject properties. Preservation: Focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials. Requires retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time. When the property's distinctive materials, features, and spaces are essentially intact and thus convey the historic significance without extensive repair or replacement; when depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate; and when a continuing or new use does not require additions or extensive alterations, Preservation may be considered as a treatment. Rehabilitation: Acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character. When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. Restoration: Allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods. When the property's design, architectural, or historical significance during a particular period of time outweighs the potential loss of extant materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods; when there is substantial physical and documentary evidence for the work; and when contemporary alterations and additions are not planned, Restoration may be considered as a treatment. Reconstruction: Establish a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes. When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret a property's historic value (including the re-creation of missing components in a historic district or site); when no other property with the same associative value has survived; and when sufficient historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction, Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment. Once a treatment option has been established, an associated set of standards are applied. In addition to the Standards, the Secretary of the Interior publishes guidelines with specific examples to aid in interpreting how the standards are applied. For the purposes of this Basis of Design, the treatment approaches most appropriate to the four proposed project alternatives are Preservation and Rehabilitation. 1 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, November 2004) DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 6 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Standards for Preservation: 1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color and texture. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Standards for Rehabilitation* 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 7 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. *For the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, there is a similar but distinct set of standards. Further discussion of the appropriate treatment options for the Beatty Property Home can be found in the following sections of this Basis of Design Report. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE The California Historical Building Code is Part 8 of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). The code provides performance-oriented rather than prescriptive provisions for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, and other associated work to enable the continued use of historical resources.2 The code is intended to recognize the unique construction problems and obstacles to meeting code requirements of new construction when executing projects on historic resources that may have been constructed per earlier codes, or without any building code at all. From Section 8-101.2, Purpose: The purpose of the CHBC is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties (Chapter 8-2). The CHBC is intended to provide solutions for the preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties, to promote sustainability, to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost-effective approach to preservation, and to provide for the reasonable safety of the occupants or users. The CHBC requires enforcing agencies to accept solutions that are reasonably equivalent to the regular code (as defined in Chapter 8-2) when dealing with qualified historical buildings or properties. Generally, qualified historical buildings may continue to be used as they were historically unless the continued use or occupancy constitutes a distinct hazard to life safety as defined in the CHBC.3 For a change in occupancy, e.g. in the case of a rehabilitation or adaptive use, the property may need to be adapted to conform with the applicable requirements of its new use as defined in the CHBC.4 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE For existing buildings not designated as historic resources, the provisions of the California Existing Building Code (CEBC) apply to their repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, and relocation.5 Per the 2016 CEBC, Section 101.3, the intent of the code is to “provide flexibility to permit the use of alternative approaches to achieve compliance with minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare insofar as they are affected by the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, and relocation of existing buildings.” The Beatty Property Home is an historic resource, but the CEBC may still be applied by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. 2 California Historical Building Code, 2016, vii. 3 2016 California Historical Building Code, Section 8-102.1.4. 4 2016 California Historical Building Code, Section 8-302.2. 5 2016 California Existing Building Code, Section 101.2 DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 8 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. BEATTY PROPERTY HOME CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS According to the California DPR form 523B for the Beatty Property Home prepared in 2010, the property appears eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria 1 and 3. Under Criterion 1 (events), the property was found to appear eligible for its association with the broad patterns of location and regional history as a remnant of the pioneer community of Alma.6 Under Criterion 3 (design/construction), the property appears to be eligible as a property that embodies that characterizes the plank-frame (slab-sided) construction that was common of Western pioneer vernacular dwellings constructed in the area in the 1860s, of which very few remain.7 Due to its association with the pioneer community of Alma, the period of significance for the Beatty property is bounded by its date of construction in 1866 and the destruction of the town of Alma for the construction of the Lexington Reservoir in 1952.8 The Beatty Property Home is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Character defining features of the Beatty Property Home include the following: Exterior: Siting of the home on a hill overlooking the property and the reservoir/former community of Alma. Massing relationship between the earliest portion of the home and subsequent additions. Intersecting gable roofs Absence of ornamental details at the façade; simple, flat trim around windows. T-shaped plan Divided-lite, double-hung wood windows. Board-and-batten plank-frame construction on oldest portions of house Horizontal siding over plank-frame construction on the portions of the house closest to the community of Alma. Interior: Spatial relationships between the original portion of the home and subsequent additions PERMITTING AGENCY – AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION The Beatty Property Home is located in unincorporated Los Gatos in Santa Clara County, California. The authority having jurisdiction for environmental approvals including the issuance of planning approvals and building and demolition permits, is the Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development. EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT On July 24th, 2019 Page & Turnbull performed a visual conditions assessment of the exterior and interior of the Beatty House Property, located at 17820 Alma Bridge Road, in unincorporated Santa Clara County, approximately 3.5 miles as the crow flies from downtown Los Gatos, California. The Beatty House sits atop a level site that drops off steeply to the West toward Alma Bridge Road. The site also slopes downhill to the north toward a gravel parking area with a seasonal stream beyond. Much of the immediate site is shaded beneath mature oaks, several of which are surrounded by decorative stone curbs/planter beds. It is operated by the 6 VerPlanck, Christopher. California DPR 523B, Building, Structure, and Object Record, Beatty Property. 2010, pg. 1. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 9 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Conditions were examined at ground level for the building exteriors and interiors. For the assessment of structural conditions, please see the report produced by ZFA. The conditions assessment investigated the following exterior building elements: Wood Windows Doors Exterior wood cladding Foundations Porch Roof cladding The interior building elements investigated were the following: Wood Floors, Interior partitions, Roof framing, Order of additions to the building. An analysis of specific code deficiencies for occupancy was not conducted, however general code considerations related to the four proposed project alternatives will be discussed as applicable. Previous documentation provided to the Page & Turnbull team is listed below. The DPR 523A Historic Report by the State of California provides a detailed description of the different building materials and distribution of the spaces, although the assumptions dating the different additions may not be correct considering their distribution and volume in respect to window and door openings in the other sections. None of these reports includes recommendations related to the structural stability and material maintenance of the building. DPR 523A Historic Report Beatty Property, by the State of California – The resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation (dated August and September 2010) Archaeological assessment report for the Beatty Property, by Pacific Legacy Inc., (12/17/2010) Summary Historic Report Beatty Property, by Knapp & VerPlanck Preservation Architects (10/13/2010) While the scope of this report does not include the preparation of restoration documents or specific recommendations for repairs, any costing of such work should consider that the work is to be performed in accordance with the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation which indicate the following hierarchy: protect and retain, repair, or replace in-kind (if deteriorated beyond repair). Exterior Windows All windows are boarded up with plywood on the exterior leaving part of the framing visible from the outside. They are mostly single pane glazing double hung windows, with each sash is four-lite or six-lite equal sized glass single panes in the estimated original windows, being single-lite glass panes in the windows of the rooms from the time of the last alteration to the building. The surrounding cladding shows signs of modifications in the size or location of several windows, in most cases having a small section of wall cladding under the sill substituted by a metal sheet. The cladding surrounding the bathroom window is cut forming the shape of what could have been a door opening, suggesting the need for further investigation on the surrounding area of this window, to verify the existence of exterior steps or access to this suspected door. Visually they appear to be in fair condition, DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 10 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. in need only of replacement of broken glass and painting of the wooden parts, though verification should be made to the operable parts of each to assess the need or lack thereof more extensive work. Doors All doors are boarded up with plywood on the exterior leaving part of the framing visible from the outside. The door from the dining room is visible from the inside of the house. It is a multi-panel white painted door with external lock sets, being the top half divided into six-lite single glass panes and the bottom half having one large wood panel. They appear to be in good conditions though some of the glass pieces are missing. The door from the parlor is partially blocked beneath the south porch described above. The door from the suspected storage room is similar to these, though it is currently removed from the frame and laying on the floor in the middle of the room. The doors to the living room and to the pantry are of a more modern design corresponding to the last major modifications of the house, described in the DPR 523A report as being of post-World War II design, although these last doors were not visible during this assessment visit being boarded by plywood sheets, rendering their current conditions unknown. Exterior Wood Cladding The exterior wood cladding is composed by vertical board and batten system trimmed at the top and bottom by horizontal boards. The trim is missing in some sections. The left and middle sections of the south façade as well as the west façade have a second layer of cladding made of horizontal wood boards directly attached over the original cladding. The latter are in fair to poor conditions, being the most exposed sections to rain and direct sunlight and showing evident signs of weathering deterioration and wood decoloring. The crawling space is boarded with horizontal hinged boards along the western half of the north façade and with vertical boards along the west and two westernmost sections of the south façade. These boards are generally in fair to poor conditions, with some signs of water damage and weathering on the more exposed façades of the house. All other sections of the cladding are partially protected by surrounding trees being in good to fair conditions. Foundations The foundations for the building were not accessible making their conditions unknown, although the general state of square and plumb of the building attests for no significant failure of the foundations. Porch The current porch is in poor shape, being clearly an addition as the slope partially blocks the door frame of the exit door from the parlor, although it could be based on a previous existing porch. The rafters are attached to the façade, not being a prolongation of the roof structure of the building, and with part of their support metal elements resting halfway on the window headers. The floor is cast in place concrete, and the westernmost section is partly collapsed. The roofing is of asphalt shingles supported by sheets of plywood, not fully joined where it meets the end of the living room roof as can be seen from underneath. In this case the shingles are the only element preventing water filtering along this joint. Roof cladding The original roof cladding has been substituted by asphalt shingles over a plywood sheathing, nailed directly onto the historic sheathing. It appears to be in good conditions on the exterior, although there are signs of humidity and possible water infiltrations underneath the more complex points where the roof structure and slopes from the different buildings joins together. DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 11 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Interior Interiors were evaluated for the presence of protected animal species residing in the building, current conditions of the different elements and identification of the original building and later additions. Page & Turnbull was directed to focus our conditions assessment on stabilizing and mothballing the original building retaining only those additions deemed necessary to provide protection for the original elements. Floors The original floors have a base made possibly of fir planks, covered by resilient carpet patterned tar paper which may be original, in the dining and living room and bedrooms, and more modern resilient flooring in the bathroom and kitchen and pantry. The parlor and the corridor are carpeted. Conditions of the base wood are mostly unknown as only some parts were visible, though the visible areas are in fair condition, showing some general darkening where not covered by the floor finishes, and requiring some maintenance. Only exception is what’s considered the storage room without flooring finish and several floor boards missing. Interior Partitions The only original partition clearly visible is the one separating the dining room from the parlor, being of vertical single planks of wood mostly covered in cardboard drywall, not showing signs of moisture related deterioration or insect attacks, being in good conditions where visible. Other partitions are modifications of the exterior cladding when an addition turned it into a partition, except for the partitions of the northern half of the L- shape addition, which are visible from the inside of the closets, and formed by more modern stud framed walls covered in plywood and in good conditions in the visible areas. Most walls have an interior finish of cardboard drywall making unknown the exact current conditions of the underlying walls, though they appear to be in sound conditions. Recommended more extensive investigation to verify conditions or need of any treatments. Beneath the cardboard drywall there are traces of decorative paintings or painted paper in the living room walls, which would require more extensive research to determine its conditions and historic value. Roof Framing The roof framing is concealed mostly beneath burlap, fiberglass boards or other ceiling finishes not allowing to view the roof framing structure making its conditions generally unknown. The exception to this are some openings in different corners of some rooms where the ceiling has partially collapsed. The visible sections of roof framing through these show high levels of decoloring, humidity and rot of the original sheathing, and of parts of the framing structure, though the replacement of the roof cladding appears to have reduced or stopped water leakage, improving its conditions. Anyway, further evaluation is recommended to verify this point prior to deciding on treatment. Also necessary to take in consideration the fact that these openings also serve as exit points for several bats that apparently have their nesting grounds between the roof and ceiling of the house, which should be addressed to prior to any additional work is carried out in the building.DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 12 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 1 Figure 2 South façade of ca. 1870 addition. Window is addition possibly from the World War II interior modifications as it doesn’t have the metal piece under the sill that other windows do on the façades with this cladding South façade of ca. 1877 addition. Windows and door correspond to the World War II modifications. Porch is addition covering partially the door exiting from the original dwelling. Figure 3 Figure 4 South and west façades of the ca. 1870 addition. Second cladding horizontal layer heavily weathered due to lack of protective treatment and care. Electric connections and meter are in this corner. Close-up of lost piece of horizontal cladding where underlying vertical original cladding can be seen, also heavily weatheredDR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 13 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 5 Figure 6 East façade (left) of the L-shaped addition. Door is blocked at the top end by the porch. The horizontal second layer of cladding was added before the extra feet connecting the buildings was added as it continues beneath the façade of the connection Right side of the East façade. Open shed is the latest addition to the building and has direct access to the pantry from the previous addition. The visible change in roof slope corresponds to the original building vs the kitchen and pantry addition Figure 7 Figure 8 North façade of the kitchen and pantry. Roof has a gentler slope indicating its’ belonging of a later addition date. Several elements have been replaced by more modern materials like T-111 siding Close-up of cladding under the bathroom window, clearly different from the cladding of the rest insinuating it may have been originally a door opening that was later partially closed to form the current bathroom window DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 14 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 9 Figure 10 Windows of the north façade of the L-shape addition. The metal pieces under the sills indicates they were moved upwards or reduced in size during modifications to match height of other windows in the building Bathroom window. Opening suspected to be created partially using the existing opening from a presumably previous existing door. The initial height of the cladding boards used insinuates the possibility of a landing and steps leading up to the house. Recommended archaeological study of the area beneath to verify preexisting conditions. Figure 11 Figure 12 West façade and westernmost section of south façade. Corresponding to the L-shaped addition. All windows except the one in the center, belonging to the hallway, have been moved upwards or modified and reduced in size after the second layer of cladding was installed having a metal piece under the sills to cover up the gap originated during this modification West façade of the L-shape, corresponding to the dining room and pantry. The roofs of the entire dwelling are relatively new, consisting of recent plywood sheathing nailed to historic spaced sheathing and covered in asphalt shingles. DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 15 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 13 Figure 14 Opening in the ceiling to the roof structure in the parlor. Current nesting area for bats, sighting of bats not visible in this photo. Recommend removal by experienced personnel following appropriate directions by biological monitors prior to any repairs in these particular areas Sighting of bat resting above the window in the unfinished room. Other signs throughout the whole building suggest the possibility of several nests in the house Figure 15 Figure 16 Double level ceiling of the living room. The lower section could have been part of the original east façade of the building or a porch covering its eastern side Hanging lower ceiling in the living room as seen through an opening. Clearly the vertical boards could be part of an original façade that was later modified. Evident humidity and rot signs, especially where the different roofing areas merge. Visible the new plywood sheathing directly over the historic one DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 16 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 17 Figure 18 Current gyp board finish nailed over pre-existing floral painting finish board Bedroom 2 is accessed descending one step from the living room, insinuating construction at a later phase. Carpeted floor, single flush door, 1/1 window, and isolation on ceiling insinuate a relatively modern build Figure 19 Figure 20 Current ceiling of bedroom 1 include modern materials as fiberglass isolation and others. Walls are covered in faux wood paneling over isolation with fiberglass, indicating it underwent modifications in more recent times. Kitchen with access to the pantry on the far side. Several cabinets have been removed. These rooms belong to the latest addition (not counting the shed) and add little value to the historic elements of the dwelling. Figure 21 Figure 22 Living room, exit door with mid-19th century rim locks, and window to the west façade. Wall finish not properly attached needs reattachment if possible or replacement when not possible to reattach. Original floor sheet in rug pattern over tar paper currently folded in half. Would require rehabilitation treatment to rejoin both halves and to bring out the original colors prior to final reinstallation DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 17 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 23 Figure 24 Parlor, with carpeted floor and unfinished walls and ceiling insinuate that it was previously used as a bedroom before the final modifications to the house Wall boards conforming the façades and partitions are covered directly by the interior finish cardboard with no isolation layers in between Figure 25 Figure 26 Corridor window, design clearly corresponds to a latter period from that of the building of this section. Walls covered in gypsum board Door communicating to the corridor, and steps going down from this to the kitchen. The slight slope downwards into the corridor at the door footer could indicate that this was originally the location of an exit door DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 18 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 27 Figure 28 Floor of bedroom 1, floor finish is also a sheet in rug pattern over tar paper Bathroom window where presumably there was originally an exit door Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Bathroom with a pedestal sink and moderne style bathtub. This corresponds to the time of the last interior modifications of the house interior of closet from bathroom. Similar disposition in bedroom 1 and storeroom closets. Being single plywood sheathing over wood posts South façade and door opening of the storeroom don’t have finish treatment, currently the door is laying on the floor of the room Figure 32 Figure 33 Storeroom floor is missing several boards. Walls and ceiling are unfinished, but having a closet (top left corner), insinuates the intention to turn it into a bedroom. Exit door is currently on the floor and obviously belongs to the earlier years of the house Living room and access to bedroom 2. Estimated original building, though the modern finishes indicate it was modified at a later period. Access to bedroom 2 is descending one step, which could indicate different construction phases DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 19 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 34 Figure 35 Double level ceiling of the living room. The lower section could have been part of the original east façade of the building or a porch covering its eastern side Hanging lower ceiling in the living room as seen through an opening. Clearly the vertical boards could be part of an original façade that was later modified. Evident humidity and rot signs, especially where the different roofing areas merge. Visible the new plywood sheathing directly over the historic one Figure 36 Figure 37 Current gyp board finish nailed over pre-existing floral painting finish board Bedroom 2 is accessed descending one step from the living room, insinuating construction at a later period. Carpeted floor, single flush door, 1/1 window, and isolation on ceiling insinuate a relatively modern build Figure 38 Figure 39 Current ceiling of bedroom 2 include modern materials as fiberglass isolation and others. Walls are covered in faux wood paneling over isolation with fiberglass. Kitchen with access to the pantry on the far side. Several cabinets have been removed. These rooms belong to the latest addition (not counting the shed) and add little value to the historic elements of the dwelling, being the most heavily remodeled or built with most modern elements. DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 20 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The following evaluation concerns the work required to address architectural deterioration and deficiencies, and plan for the necessary building maintenance associated with the proposed project alternatives. For recommended structural stabilization and rehabilitation work, please see the report produced by ZFA. 1. Restrict Perimeter Access to the Structure, such that the public cannot enter the surrounding area, and remove or stabilize potential public safety hazards. This option proposes to install a fence around the perimeter of the property to restrict access to the home in order to mitigate potential public safety concerns associated with unauthorized access to the building. No distinct hazards were observed at the exterior of the building at the time of survey in July, 2019, however it may be advisable to remove some of the building additions that are in poor condition and may become hazards with future deterioration. Since this option does not seek to stabilize the resource for any future use or prevent further deterioration, it would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Existing conditions that threaten the historic resource include the wildlife residing in the structure, collapsing floors and ceilings, and deterioration of the cladding allowing weather, insects, and animals entry to the resource. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes to allow perimeter access for exterior viewing and interpretation. Retain structure for interpretive purposes. Of the treatments defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the standards for Preservation are most appropriate to this proposed project alternative. Mothballing efforts should comply with the National Park Service’s Preservation Brief #31, Mothballing Historic Buildings. The purpose of mothballing as defined in the Brief is to control the long-term deterioration of the building while it is unoccupied and to find methods to protect it from sudden loss by fire or vandalism. General recommendations for this approach are described below. To provide safe perimeter access to the Beatty Property Home for the purposes of maintenance and interpretation, the derelict, framed shed on the east side of the home should be carefully dismantled and removed. The wildlife currently inhabiting the building should be relocated per District standards. Holes and gaps in the envelope that allow for the intrusion of wildlife and water into the building interior should be patched per preservation best practices. Other deteriorated elements of the historic building envelope described in the Conditions Assessment should also be repaired per preservation best practices. Areas and/or elements of the building envelope that are deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced in-kind to match the original elements and construction techniques. Extant original board-and-batten siding should be repaired. The collapsing floor should be stabilized, and the existing hole in the floor should be covered securely. The existing plywood covering the doors and windows should be inspected semi-annually and re-secured as required. Adequate ventilation shall be installed that is sufficiently protected from the intrusion of additional insects and wildlife. Following necessary repairs, exterior wooden elements should be prepared and painted; building should be repainted every 7-10 years to maintain the coating protecting the historic substrate. The roof and drainage systems should be inspected at least semi-annually before and after the rainy season and cleared of debris to allow for proper drainage. The interior of the home should be inspected at least three times annually coinciding with before, during, and after the rainy season to check for leaks; localized repairs may be undertaken if appropriate, but the roof should be replaced as required 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. DR A F T Attachment 2 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul - Beatty Property Home March 13, 2020 - 21 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. at the end of its designed service life. Asphalt shingle roofs should typically be replaced every 25-years. Trees around the home should be maintained and trimmed as necessary for their health and stability to reduce the risks to the home of falling limbs or trees. Security measures should be undertaken and installed at potential points of access in order to protect the building and the public. 3. Improve the structure to be repurposed for occupancy as a limited use retreat, or relocate the structure to a location with adequate access to potable water for use as a residence. Of the treatments defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the standards for Rehabilitation are the most appropriate to this proposed project alternative. The existing condition and location of the property present several challenges for this proposed project alternative. Because the Beatty Property Home was found historically significant in part for its association with the historic pioneer community of Alma, relocating the structure would significantly compromise the property’s integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, and consequently its significance as an historic resource. Relocating the building would be inconsistent with Rehabilitation Standards 1 and 2. If the building is rehabilitated for occupancy, alternative means of supplying potable water to the historic site should be explored. The windows, doors, trim, and siding of the home should be repaired and rehabilitated rather than replaced. Areas and/or elements of the building envelope that are deteriorated beyond repair, should be replaced in-kind to match the original elements and construction techniques. Given the existing condition of the building interior, significant abatement of hazardous materials would likely be required to make the building safe for occupancy. The wildlife currently occupying the building would have to be relocated per District standards, and their waste products would need to be properly removed. Interior finishes are in a state of considerable disrepair and would likely need to be removed and replaced. Areas where the floor has failed must be repaired, with missing materials or those deteriorated beyond repair replaced in kind to match the existing sound material. The bathroom fixtures would need to be replaced. If the District chooses to provide a kitchen for the rehabilitated structure, the existing fixtures and appliances would also need to be replaced. The proposed use as a limited retreat would likely be classified as a transient lodging and be required to meet the associated accessibility provisions of the California Building Code. A formal accessibility review was not part of the scope of this investigation, however based on observations of the site and building, the following existing barriers to accessibility were observed: - None of the existing doors are level with the exterior grade. - As-built drawings by ZFA Structural Engineers indicate the clear space at the building doors is less than the 29-1/2 inches allowed by the 2016 CHBC section 8-603.3. - There are multiple level changes of at least one step inside the building corresponding with various historic additions to the original portion of the structure. Alterations to make the building compliant with accessibility code requirements should be designed to not compromise the character-defining features of the building, and should be installed in a way that is reversable to the extent possible. 4. Demolish the structure. Demolishing the Beatty Property Home, which has been determined to be an historic resource, may require additional processes to obtain demolition permits. Debris from the demolished building, including all hazardous materials, would need to be disposed of in accordance with Local, State, and Federal Regulations, and the site would need to be cleaned up and remediated to allow for public access. DR A F T 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a limited use retreat space. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT B Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers DR A F T Attachment 2 BEATTY PROPERTY HOME STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT AND BASIS OF DESIGN (BOD) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, California District Project Number: MAA22-004 December 2019 Prepared For Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Prepared By Steven Patton, SE, Senior Associate Mark Moore, SE, Principal-in-Charge San Carlos, California March 13, 2020 DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 1 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................3 EVALUATION OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................4 STRUCTURE OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................................4 General Site Description .........................................................................................................................................4 Structural Performance Objective ...........................................................................................................................4 Site Seismicity (Earthquake Activity) ......................................................................................................................5 Structural Systems and Condition Assessment .....................................................................................................6 Building Type ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Historical Performance ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Benchmark Buildings ........................................................................................................................................... 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 14 Structural Seismic Deficiencies ........................................................................................................................... 14 Structural Gravity Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................ 15 BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative: .................................................................................... 15 RELIABILITY OF SEISMIC EVALUATIONS .......................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A – SITE MAP ...................................................................................................................................... 19 APPENDIX B – STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .................................... 21 APPENDIX C – SUMMARY DATA SHEET ............................................................................................................ 22 Summary Data Sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Material Properties ............................................................................................................................................... 24 APPENDIX D – TIER 1 CHECKLISTS AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS ................................................... 25 DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 2 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The following structural Basis of Design report provides an evaluation of the condition and anticipated performance of the existing Beatty Property Home structure to support seismic and gravity loading as well as a conceptual design of the structural scope required to achieve four proposed project alternatives. The findings and recommendations contained herein, in conjunction with those from the other team members, are intended to assist the District with cost evaluations and decision-making. The four alternatives being considered are: 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a limited use retreat space. The California Historic Building Code (CHBC) would be utilized to define the design criteria. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Structural Condition Assessment Visual assessments were performed during multiple site visits in 2019 by Steven Patton of ZFA. The exterior and interior of the structure was observed. During one site visit with the hazardous material specialist, the District staff allowed access to interior portions of the building. The interior review included a walkthrough of the ground floor and crawl space areas. No access was provided to the building’s roof. The structure appears to be in generally poor to fair structural condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. No original construction structural drawings are available for review. As-built drawings contained herein were created by ZFA based on visual observations and measurements ma de during site visits. The following major structural deficiencies were also observed in the existing building ; all photos referenced can be found in the Structural Systems and Condition Assessment section. • The structure is founded on wood posts that sit directly on the soil and show evidence of moisture/ rot damage (see Photos 1, 5, and 13). No foundation is present. This condition has likely also contributed to differential settlement across the structure. • There are holes in the floors, walls, and ceiling where sheathing is missing or damaged (see Photos 6, 7, and 8). • The is a partially collapsed portion of the shed roof along the south edge of the building (see Photo 9). • The collar ties between the rafters do not appear to be structurally adequate, and there is no ridge beam present to span between collar ties. (see Photo 8). • The existing 3x (flat) floor girders do not appear to be structurally adequate (see Photo 13). • The framed shed on the east side of the home is derelict and not stable (see Photos 2 and 10). This element of the structure should be removed. Seismic Assessment The Beatty home has been reviewed for the Collapse Prevention performance level using the Tier 1 evaluation of the ASCE 41-17 standard Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. The building was reviewed based on the visual assessments performed by ZFA staff, geological investigation performed by Romig Engineers and ASCE 41-17 structural Tier 1 checklists. Nonstructural elements were not included in the scope of the Tier 1 analysis. The building is framed using light 1x planks oriented vertically on the exterior, and a second layer of 1x planks oriented horizontally on the interior, to form the exterior walls. The short crawl space of the structure below the DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 3 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA ground floor level is laterally supported by 1x horizontal braces. The structure lacks a complete load path and is expected to perform poorly during a significant earthquake. Ten (10) Tier 1 deficiencies were identified as noncompliant, see the Findings and Recommendations section of report for additional information on the items noted below: • LOAD PATH: The structure does not contain a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serve to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. • There is no defined lateral force-resisting system present in the existing structure. The interior and exterior siding are not adequate to transfer seismic forces to the foundation. The horizontal sheathing roof is not adequate to act as a roof diaphragm. • The structure is supported directly on the soil with no foundation. • TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: The foundation does not have ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classi fied as Site Class A, B, or C. • SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure is more than 100 lb/ft for straight sheathing. • WALLS are not positively CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls do not have an interconnection between the ground story walls and crawlspace walls to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. • CRIPPLE WALLS below first-floor-level shear walls are not braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. • WOOD SILLS are not bolted to the foundation. • WOOD SILL BOLTS are not present. • WOOD POSTS: There are no foundations, and therefore no positive connections between wood posts and the foundation. • GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: There is no positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girders and the column supports. • ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: Continuous roof diaphragm chords are not present around the perimeter of the roof. Geotechnical Investigation Based on the geotechnical investigation, the primary geotechnical concerns at the site (and the reference page in the geotechnical investigation report) are: • The potential for severe ground shaking at the site due to moderate to large earthquakes in the area (page 6). The following evaluation report details our structural findings and recommendations. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this evaluation is to review and evaluate the structure of the subject building using visual observations, engineering judgment and criteria provided by ASCE 41-17. The evaluation is focused on identifying deficiencies that are present in the structural system that may affect the performance of the building under gravity or seismic loads to identify structural scope that is required to stabilize the building for mothballing or rehabilitate it as an occupied structure. The seismic evaluation is based on criteria that has been tailored for specific building types and desired levels of building performance based on observation of structural and nonstructural damage occurring in previous DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 4 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA earthquakes and provides a means to identify general deficiencies based on anticipated behavior of specific building types. The Tier 1 evaluation procedure of ASCE 41-17 was used to assess primary components and connections in the seismic force-resisting system using standard checklists and simplified structural calculations. Checklist items are general in nature and are intended to highlight building components that do not exceed conservative construction guidelines. If the element is compliant, it is anticipated to perform adequately under seismic loading without additional review or strengthening. Items indicated as non-compliant in a Tier 1 checklist are considered potential deficiencies that require further analysis. The results of the Tier 1 evaluation provide a general understanding of the anticipated performance of the structure in its current state and inform the structural scope required to provide overall stability if the building is to be mothballed with no public access to the interior. If the building is to be rehabilitated for an occupied use, the Tier 1 results indicate that retrofit of the structure is required. The retrofit is designed to the governing building code, which is the 2016 or 2019 California Historical Building Code. The structural scope for these alternatives, as well as restricted access and demolition options, are summarized in this report. EVALUATION OVERVIEW This structural evaluation report for the existing Beatty Property Home is based on the following: • The American Society of Civil Engineers/ Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI 41-17) Standard for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings - Tier 1, Collapse Prevention level structural evaluation criteria. • Multiple site visits for general review of the structure were performed by Steven Patton of ZFA. No destructive testing or removal of finishes was performed or included in the scope. • Existing material properties as indicated in Appendix C. • Review of the following geotechnical report and hazard maps: • Geotechnical Report prepared by Romig Engineers dated October 2019 STRUCTURE OVERVIEW General Site Description The building is located on a gentling sloping site located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve east of Lexington Reservoir and just east of Alma Bridge Road, near Los Gatos, California. Several medium to large trees and native grasses are present surrounding the building. The building is currently unoccupied. Structural Performance Objective In accordance with ASCE 41-17, a structural performance objective consists of a target performance level for structural elements in combination with a specific seismic hazard level. For seismic assessment of the subject building, the Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE) was selected. While the BPOE seeks safety for occupants with reasonable confidence, it allows existing structures to be assessed for seismic forces that are less than those required for the design of new structures under the current building co de (2016 or 2019 California Building Code). Buildings meeting the BPOE are expected to experience nominal damage from relatively frequent, moderate earthquakes, but have the potential for significant damage and economic loss from the most severe, though less frequent, seismic events. It should be noted that the cost savings from not retrofitting the subject building up to current code standards may result in greater repair costs in the event of an earthquake. For the purposes of this Tier 1 review to the BPOE, the specified level of performance is Collapse Prevention (S- 5) for this equivalent residential use building (Risk Category II as defined by ASCE 7). The Collapse Prevention Structural Performance Level as described by ASCE/SEI 41-17 is defined as: “…the post-earthquake damage DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 5 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA state in which a structure has damaged components and continues to support gravity loads but retains no margin against collapse. A structure in compliance with the acceptance criteria specified in this standard for this Structural Performance Level is expected to achieve this state.” Retrofit of the building to satisfy this performance objective would only be mandatory for Alternative 3 which would allow for re-occupancy of the unpermitted building. The S-5 Structural Performance Level can be defined as less than the Life Safety (S-3) performance level. For further context, the Life Safety Structural Performance Level (S-3), is described as: ‘… the post-earthquake damage state in which significant damage to the structure has occurred but some margin against either partial or total structural collapse remains.’ A Tier 1 evaluation of nonstructural elements was not included within the scope of this review. Site Seismicity (Earthquake Activity) In accordance with ASCE 41-17, ‘seismicity’, or the potential for ground motion, is classified into regions defined as Low, Moderate, or High. These regions are based on mapped site accelerations Ss and S1, which are then modified by site coefficients Fa and Fv to produce the Design Spectral Accelerations, SDS (short period) and SD1 (1-second period). The successful performance of buildings in areas of high seismicity depends on a combination of strength, ductility of structural components, and the presence of a fully interconnected, balanced, and complete seismic force-resisting system. Where buildings occur in lower levels of seismicity, the strength and ductility required for better performance is significantly reduced and building components or connections with additional strength capacity can in some cases be adequate despite lacking ductility. Based on the geotechnical investigation and report prepared for the subject site, the soil profile of this building has been determined by the geotechnical engineer to be classified as Site Class C as defined by ASCE 41-17 and is used in determination of site coefficients Fa and Fv. According to the site values indicated by the geotechnical report, USGS data and evaluated using seismic acceleration equations and tables of ASCE 41-17, the site is located in a region of High Seismicity with a design short-period spectral response acceleration parameter (SDS) of 1.554g and a design spectral response acceleration parameter at a one second period (S D1) of 0.962g. Per the table shown below, both of these parameters exceed the lower boundaries for high seismicity classification, 0.5g for SDS and 0.2g for SD1. Level of Seismicity* SDS SD1 Low < 0.167g < 0.067g Moderate ≥ 0.167g < 0.500g ≥ 0.067g < 0.200g High ≥ 0.500g ≥ 0.200g *Where SXS and SX1 values fall in different levels of seismicity, the higher level shall be used. The spectral response parameters SS and S1 were obtained for the BSE-2E seismic hazard level for existing structures (BPOE). The acceleration values were adjusted for the maximum direction and site class in accordance with ASCE 41-17 Section 2.4.1, and compared to BSE-2N (defined by current building code as the maximum considered earthquake for design of new buildings) to determine the design values for the Tier 1 analysis, since values obtained for the BSE-1E hazard level need not exceed the hazard levels for new construction. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 6 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA The following charts depict the response spectra for the multiple seismic hazard levels defined by AS CE 41-17: two existing hazard levels and two hazard levels corresponding to code desi gn of new structures (ASCE 7). Note that the seismic hazard level for design of existing structures is lower than that for new construction for this structure (period <1.0). Seismic Hazard Level* Building Code Reference Design Spectral Acceleration Sa(XS)(T) BSE-1E ASCE 41-17 (20%/50yr) 1.270g BSE-1N ASCE 7-10 Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) 1.914g BSE-2E ASCE 41-17 (5%/50yr) 2.777g BSE-2N ASCE 7-10 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) 2.871g * Seismic hazard levels denoted with 'E' for existing buildings or 'N' for new building equivalency. Structural Systems and Condition Assessment General The one-story wood-framed residential building was originally constructed between 1866 and 1877. The roof is approximately 12 feet above grade at its highest point. The building footprint is approximately 1,440 square feet. Plans, sections and elevations are shown for reference in Figures 1 through 4. Refer to Appendix B for a 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Sp e c t r a l R e s p o n s e A c c e l e r a t i o n ( g ) Period (seconds) BSE-1E BSE-2E BSE-1N BSE-2N 75% BSE-1N BPOE Seismic Hazard (BSE-2E) DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 7 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA complete set of annotated structural drawings. Modifications to the existing structure, including installation of some plywood roof sheathing and asphalt roof shingles, appear to have occurred since the original construction. Additionally, the pantry and shed located in the northeast corner appear to be additions added later at an unknown time. Visual assessments were performed during multiple site visits in 2019 by Steven Patton of ZFA. The exterior and interior of the structure was observed. During one site visit with the hazardous material specialist, the District staff allowed access to interior portions of the building. The interior review included a walkthrough of the ground floor and crawl space areas. No access was provided to the building’s roof. The structure appears to be in generally poor to fair structural condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. No original construction structural drawings are available for review. Existing drawings contained herein were created by ZFA based on visual observations and measurements made during site visits. Roof Framing The roofing is composed of asphalt shingles supported directly on 1x horizontal lumber decking oriented up -down slope that forms the roof diaphragm. The 1x decking is supported by 1x framing at approximately 24” on center which spans between the roof rafters. The roof rafters are 2x4 nominal spaced approximately 36” on center and clear span from the ridge to the exterior walls (See photo 8). 1x6 collar ties span between the rafters below the ridge to help resist horizontal thrust and allows the rafters to span between exterior bearing walls. There does not appear to be a ridge beam or ridge board. The existing roof framing plan is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Roof Framing Plan from ZFA-prepared Existing Condition Drawings DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 8 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Full building elevations are shown in Figures 2 and 3 below. Figure 2: South Elevation from ZFA-prepared Existing Condition Drawings Figure 3: Full Building North Elevation from ZFA-prepared Existing Condition Drawings Walls Walls above the ground floor are typically framed with horizontal 1x siding on the exterior, and vertical 1x to 2x siding on the interior face. Vertical wood framing within the wall may also be distributed throughout the bearing walls but was not observed while on site. The original interior partition is framed with1x wood siding as well. Wood siding is missing in some locations, creating openings in the walls allowing water and pests to enter the building. The crawlspace walls are framed with 3x posts spaced at approximately 4 feet on center, with exterior horizontal or vertical siding. The posts and siding are in ground contact along the bottom edge (see Photo 13). Floor Framing At the ground floor level, the flooring is composed of 1x horizontal wood planking spanning between 2x floor joists spaced at approximately 16” on center. The floor joists span between 3x flat girders that are supported by 3x wood posts. The wood posts are either supported directly on grade or sit on a flat wood sleeper that is directly on grade (see Photos 5, 6 and 13). No blocking, hardware or positive connections were observed between the joists, DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 9 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA girders and posts. The observable portions of the floor framing appeared in fair condition, with the exception of the moisture damaged framing in contact with the ground. Shed Roof There is a shed roof along the south side of the building supported by a 4x4 beam along the top spanning between four wood posts. The wood posts bear directly on grade. A portion of the shed roof is dilapidated and partially collapsed (see Photos 1 and 9). Seismic Force-Resisting System The lateral system of the building is not a “codified” system identified under the current building code but has been defined as light-framed (wood) walls rated for shear resistance for the purposes of this assessment. The horizontal lumber roof diaphragm transmits roof horizontal loads to the wood siding walls below. Perimeter walls and one interior wall are present as lateral force-resisting elements, as shown in Figure 4. Some diagonal wood bracing is also present within the crawlspace cripple walls to help resist lateral loads (see Photo 13). Foundations The foundations for this structure are limited to wood posts that bear either directly on grade, or on a small wood sleeper on grade. Some posts may be embedded an unknown distance into the ground. Moisture damage was observed at several posts in contact with the ground (see Photos 1, 5, 11, 12 and 13). DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 10 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Figure 4: Ground Floor Plan Material Properties Basic properties for existing structural materials found on existing building documentation or in accordance with ASCE 41 code prescribed minimum structural values utilized in the analysis calculations can be found in Appendix C. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 11 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Photo 1.South elevation, showing shed roof support by posts Photo 2. East elevation – dilapidated shed shown on the right Photo 3. West elevation Photo 4. North elevation shown on the left Photo 5.Interior crawlspace framing, showing posts bearing on grade or on wood sleepers Photo 6.Missing siding on exterior wall, and lack of concrete foundation below bearing wall DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 12 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Photo 7. Missing wood planking at interior floor Photo 8.Hole in ceiling exposing collar ties, rafters, and 1x planking at roof Photo 9. Partially collapsed portion of shed roof Photo 10.Dilapidated shed Photo 11. Moisture damage at exterior wall Photo 12. Moisture damage at exterior wall DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 13 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Photo 13.Crawlspace framing showing lack of concrete foundation, wood posts sitting directly on grade, and diagonal framing at perimeter wall Building Type In accordance with ASCE/SEI 41-17, this structure is classified as a Building Type W1: Wood-Light Frames, which was used for this evaluation. As described by ASCE/SEI 41-17: ‘These buildings are single- or multiple- family dwellings one or more stories high with plan areas less than or equal to 3,000 ft2. Building loads are light, and the framing spans are short. Floor and roof framing consist of wood joists or rafters on wood studs spaced no more than 24in. apart. The first floor framing is supported directly on the foundation system or is raised up on cripple studs and post-and-beam supports. The foundation is permitted to consist of a variety of elements. Chimneys, where present, consist of solid brick masonry, masonry veneer, or wood frame with internal metal flues. Seismic forces are resisted by wood frame diaphragms and shear-walls. Floor and roof diaphragms consist of straight or diagonal lumber sheathing, tongue-and-groove planks, oriented strand board, plywood, or other materials. Shear walls are permitted to consist of straight or lumber sheathing, plank siding, oriented strand board, plywood, stucco, gypsum board, particleboard, fiberboard, or similarly performing materials. Interior partitions are sheathed from floor to floor with plaster or gypsum board. Older construction often has open-front garages at the lowest story and is permitted to be split-level.’ Historical Performance Plywood roof diaphragm and wood framed shear wall systems have traditionally performed relatively well in earthquake events provided adequate shear wall length is maintained without localized stresses in short wall piers and provided there are no significant plan or vertical discontinuities such as a difference in stiffness between floors in a multi-storied structure. Due to the lack of plywood sheathing at the roof and walls, and lack of connections between interconnecting elements, this structure is significantly different than these typical structures and is expected to perform poorly during a significant earthquake. Benchmark Buildings In addition to classifying buildings by type of construction, ASCE 41 identifies ‘Benchmark Buildings’ for each type. The detailing of seismic force-resisting systems in Benchmark Buildings is generally considered to meet the performance requirements of ASCE 41. When a building is determined to meet Benchmark Building requirements through field verification of construction compliant with benchmark code requirements, only review of foundation and non-structural elements is required. The subject building was constructed in the 1860’s, well before the benchmark date for this type of construction. Since it does not meet the criteria of a Benchmark Building, a complete Tier 1 analysis is performed. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 14 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Structural Seismic Deficiencies The ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 Collapse Prevention and Building Type Specific Checklists indicate the primary building structure as non-compliant in ten (10) areas. These items would all need to be addressed prior to re-occupancy of the building (Alternative 3). General recommendations to address the deficiencies are summarized below; more specific structural scope items are provided in Alternatives 3 of the BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative section and Appendix B. a. LOAD PATH: The structure does not contain a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serve to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. i. Recommendation: In order to provide a complete seismic force-resisting system, provide the following: 1. New vertical lateral system such as wood shear walls. 2. New plywood sheathing on existing roof framing, with blocking along shear wall lines. 3. New foundations beneath the new lateral system. b. TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: The foundation does not have ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C. i. Recommendation: Install new concrete foundation elements embedded into the existing grade. c. SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure is more than 100 lb/ft for straight sheathing. i. Recommendation: Install new plywood sheathing on interior face of exterior walls in strategic locations. d. WALLS are not positively CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls do not have an interconnection between the ground story walls and crawlspace walls to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. i. Recommendation: Add new vertical straps or holdowns at ends of new shear walls segments that are connected to foundation elements below. e. CRIPPLE WALLS, WOOD SILLS and WOOD SILL BOLTS are not present in the crawl space level below first-floor-level shear walls. i. Recommendation: Install new cripple wall studs and pressure treated wood sills that are bolted to new concrete foundations. a) WOOD POSTS: There are no foundations, and therefore no positive connections between wood posts and the foundation. i) Recommendation: Provide new foundations with steel hardware connections to existing posts. f. GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: There is no positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girders and the column supports. i. Recommendation: Add steel connection hardware at girder and column connections. g. ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are not continuous. i. Recommendation: Add blocking, nailing and straps at roof chords to provide continuity. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 15 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Structural Gravity Deficiencies a) The structure is founded on wood posts and wood sleepers that sit directly on the soil and show evidence of moisture damage (see Photos 1, 5, 6 and 13). No foundation is present. o Recommendation: Provide new foundation around perimeter of structure and under interior posts. Repair deteriorated framing. b) There are holes in the floors, walls, and ceiling where sheathing is missing or damaged (see Photos 6, 7 and 8). o Recommendation: Replace in kind all missing siding, planking, and sheathing. c) The is a collapsed portion of the shed roof along the south edge of the building (see Photo 9). o Recommendation: Replace in kind all damaged roof framing and sheathing, including roofing and waterproofing. d) The collar ties between the rafters do not appear to be structurally adequate, and there is no ridge beam present to span between the collar ties. (see Photo 8). o Recommendation: Reinforce the existing collar ties and provide screwed connections each end. Reinforcement of rafters at collar ties may be required as well. Install 2x ridge blocking that can span between collar ties with steel connection hardware each end. e) The existing 3x (flat) floor girders do not appear to be structurally adequate (see Photo 13). o Recommendation: Reinforce all floor girders with pressure treated 2x8 sistered onto each side with screwed connections. f) The framed shed on the east side of the home is derelict and not stable (see Photos 2 and 10). o Recommendation: Complete removal of shed. BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative: Recommendations for the following alternatives are also shown in the conceptual structural drawings in Appendix A of this report. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1: Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. Under this option the structure could not be occupied. (See drawing 1-S2.1) 1) Install a secure fence, a minimum of 8-foot-tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the District’s guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 400 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building and porches to provide a safety “buffer” space in case collapse of the framing occurs in the future. Along the north side of the building, the fence will likely be required to be closer to the building (approximately 10 feet away) due to the steep slope conditions. Several trees will be within the fence perimeter and will require coordination with the Tree Protection Plan during installation. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. Install signage at building and entry gates. 2) Additional factors may need to be considered regarding the recommended lifespan of this option. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2: Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. The recommended stabilization methods specifically target only the gravity related structural deficiencies and would not allow for re-occupancy of the building. The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. (See drawings 2-S2.1 & 2-S2.2) DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 16 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA 1) Install pressure treated wood cribbing or shims to shore all post and bearing wall locations around perimeter that have observable moisture damage or are no longer in contact with the grade below. Stabilization shoring installed in a minimum 2x pattern per Corp of Engineers (or equivalent) is recommended for the cribbing shores. 2) All failed or failing portions of the existing shed roof along the south should be repaired, replaced in-kind or demolished entirely where permissible to minimize area required to be maintained by the District. 3) The dilapidated shed at the northeast corner should be dismantled and removed. 4) Diagonal 2x8 wood bracing with screwed connections should be installed on the interior face of the exterior walls and at cripple walls directly below (assume 10 linear feet along each exterior wall – 100 linear feet total). 5) Under this option, if it’s not desirable for the perimeter access to the site to be fenced in per Alternative 1, it is recommended that all 17 existing glazed openings and doors around the exterior of the building should be assumed to be permanently covered with ¾” plywood rated for exterior exposure positively anchored with galvanized fasteners. This plywood should be assumed to be painted to match existing exterior wall color to minimize the visual impact of this option. 6) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines including: a. Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b. Remove furnishings, trash and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc) and ensure it is broom-clean. c. Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d. Secure or modify utilities and mechanical systems. e. Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3: Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a limited use retreat space. The stabilization methods proposed for this alternative target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re-occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code (2016 or 2019 California Historical Building Code) to allow for re-occupancy of the existing building. It is assumed there is no change of occupancy from the existing. (See drawings 3-S2.1 - 3-S2.2) • New concrete foundation: a. Install new 18-inch wide by 24-inch deep shallow strip footing around perimeter of the building that extends a minimum of 6” above grade. See geotechnical report for requirements. Assume 250 linear feet of continuous footing. b. Install new 24-inch square by 30-inch deep spread footings under existing posts. See geotechnical report for requirements. Spread footings to extend a minimum of 6” above grade. Assume 20 spread footings. c. The foundation can be installed in sections in a “hit and miss” sequence to avoid the need to shore the entire structure simultaneously. d. Assume existing floor sheathing and framing will be removed and replaced after foundation installation. • Crawlspace framing: a. Replace all interior crawlspace posts with new 4x4 wood posts with connection hardware at top and bottom. b. Install 2x4 wood cripple wall studs at 16” on center at entire perimeter crawlspace wall, that will bear on a 3x4 pressure treated wood sill bolted to the new footing. Install ½” exterior grade plywood on interior face of studs around entire perimeter of building – assume 200 linear feet. Install new siding on exterior face of new cripple wall to match existing. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 17 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA • Roof framing: a. Replace the existing 1x roof planking with 5/8” thick plywood sheathing over entire roof surface (approximately 1,800 square ft). Provide allowance for repair/replacement of 20% of roof framing. b. Install 2x ridge boards that span between existing rafters along length of ridges with connection hardware each end. c. Install 2x blocking between existing rafters around perimeter of building at exterior and interior bearing walls. d. Reinforce existing collar ties with new collar ties with screwed connections each end. e. All failed or failing portions of the existing shed roof along the south should be repaired or demolished and replaced in-kind. f. Provide new roofing and underlayment over entire roof. • Wall framing: a. Install plywood sheathing on interior face of existing perimeter walls (assume 10 linear feet along each exterior wall – 100 feet total). Sheathing to be installed over new full height 2x4 studs at 16” on center laid flat against interior face of existing siding. Install vertical straps or holdowns between studs at ends of each segment that are fastened to posts aligned directly below in cripple wall. b. Replace all missing or damaged exterior 1x wall siding and battens in kind – assume 150 square feet. • Floor framing: a. Replace all missing or damaged 1x floor planking in kind – assume 50 square feet. b. Install steel framing clips for positive connection between existing floor joists, girders, and posts. c. Reinforce all floor girders with pressure treated 2x8 joists sistered onto each side with screwed connections. • The dilapidated shed at the northeast corner, which appears to not be part of the original construction, should be dismantled and removed. • Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; additional maintenance costs for these measures should be considered. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATVE #4: Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. For cost estimation purposes, the complete demolition of the structure, its foundations and site elements assuming that demolition would likely follow a more typical process for permitting and contractin g the demolition work. Assume 30 tons of wood materials would need to be removed from the site. (See drawing 4-S2.1) • Removal of all hazardous materials prior to demolition of the building (See Exhibit D). • The site landscaping would be rehabilitated to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. • Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre-demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site. • The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. • Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this alternative is dependent upon regulatory approval process. RELIABILITY OF SEISMIC EVALUATIONS In general, structural engineers do not have the ability to predict the exact damage to a building as a result of an earthquake. There will be a wide variation of damage from building to building due to the variations in ground motion and varying types and quality of construction. In addition, engineers cannot predict the exact ground motions of the earthquake that may strike a given building. Design and evaluation of buildings are performed using general guidelines and information from past earthquakes. Engineers and the codes used for design and DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 18 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA evaluation have been conservative when attempting to ensure that building design meets minimum standards of Collapse Prevention. This effort is based on science and technology as well as on observations ma de from actual seismic events. Building design and evaluation codes are constantly evolving to better meet performance targets based on this information. Continued research will improve predictive methods and facilitate performance-based engineering. It has been estimated that, given design ground motions, a small percent of new buildings and a slightly greater percent of retrofit buildings may fail to meet their expected performance. CLOSING The structural condition assessment, seismic review, analysis and BOD associated with this evaluation were based on the site review of framing and elements of the building which are plainly visible. No attempt was made to uncover hidden conditions or perform any destructive or non-destructive testing. The items discussed in this report are subject to revision should more information become available. This report is general in nature and does not imply that the recommendations listed above are the only structural requirements that must be made to the existing structure to meet current code criteria. We understand you may have questions regarding this evaluation and are available for comment and explanations. Please call with any questions you may have. Thank you for choosing ZFA Structural Engineers to assist you with this building seismic and structural stabilization review. Steven Patton, SE Mark Moore, SE Senior Associate Executive Principal DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 19 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA APPENDIX A – SITE MAP DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 20 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 21 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA APPENDIX B – STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES DR A F T Attachment 2 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 C D D E E 4 4 5 5 14'-0"18'-2"22'-2"5'-9" 22 ' - 7 " 4' - 0 " 15'-3" 14 ' - 3 " 24 ' - 0 " SHEDPANTRY (E) FRAMING EXPOSED, CL O S E T CL O S E T CL O S E T TUB WH SHED ROOF OUTLINE ABOVE 4'-3"4'-11"6'-6"3'-5" DOWN 4' - 8 " 10 ' - 0 " 20'-0" 20 ' - 0 " 20'-0" 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 1 11/22/2019 2:07:20 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_Sierra_Beatty Home_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 1-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 SI E R R A A Z U L P R E S E R V E 17 8 2 0 A L M A B R I D G E R D . LO S G A T O S , C A BE A T T Y P R O P E R T Y H O M E 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 2 3D ISO VIEW NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 1 Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date DR A F T PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN: ALTERNATIVE 1 1) Install a secure fence, a minimum of 8-foot-tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the District’s guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 400 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building and porches to provide a safety “buffer” space in case collapse of the framing occurs in the future. Along the north side of the building, the fence will likely be required to be closer to the building (approximately 10 feet away) due to the steep slope conditions. Several trees will be within the fence perimeter and will require coordination with the Tree Protection Plan during installation. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. 2) Remove the existing Redwood tree and Laurel tree that are in poor condition. Prune the Oak trees as outlined in Tree Protection Plan in Arborist report by Kielty Arborist Services (See Exhibit H) 3) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. NOTE 1 NOTE 1 Attachment 2 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 C D D E E 4 4 5 5 14'-0"18'-2"22'-2"5'-9" 22 ' - 7 " 4' - 0 " 15'-3" 14 ' - 3 " 24 ' - 0 " SHEDPANTRY (E) FRAMING EXPOSED, CL O S E T CL O S E T CL O S E T TUB WH SHED ROOF OUTLINE ABOVE 4'-3"4'-11"6'-6"3'-5" DOWN 4' - 8 " 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 2 11/22/2019 2:07:23 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_Sierra_Beatty Home_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 2-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 SI E R R A A Z U L P R E S E R V E 17 8 2 0 A L M A B R I D G E R D . LO S G A T O S , C A BE A T T Y P R O P E R T Y H O M E 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 1 3D ISO VIEW NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 2 Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date DR A F T PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN: ALTERNATIVE 2 1) Install pressure treated wood cribbing or shims to shore all post and bearing wall locations around perimeter that have observable moisture damage or are no longer in contact with the grade below. Stabilization shoring installed in a minimum 2x pattern per Corp of Engineers (or equivalent) is recommended for the cribbing shores. 2) All failed or failing portions of the existing shed roof along the south should be repaired, replaced in-kind or demolished entirely where permissible to minimize area required to be maintained by the District. 3) The dilapidated shed at the northeast corner, which appears to not be part of the original construction, should be dismantled and removed. 4) Diagonal 2x8 wood bracing with screwed connections should be installed on the interior face of the exterior walls and at cripple walls directly below (assume 10 linear feet along each exterior wall – 100 linear feet total). 5) Under this option, if it is not desirable for the perimeter access to the site to be fenced in per Option 1, it is recommended that all 17 existing glazed openings and doors around the exterior of the building should be assumed to be permanently covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. 6) Remove peeling, loose lead-containing paint from the exterior. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Repaint the exterior to match the original color. 7) Areas and/or elements of the building envelope that are deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced in-kind to match the original elements and construction techniques. Character-defining features such as the board-and batten siding, wood windows, and wood doors in particular should be repaired so that the building can best convey its historic form and significance. 8) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: a.Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b.Remove furnishings, trash and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc) and ensure it is broom-clean. c.Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d.Secure or modify utilities and mechanical systems. e.Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection, including 9) Remove the existing Redwood tree and Laurel tree that are in poor condition. Prune the Oak trees as outlines in Tree Protection Plan is outlined in Arborist report by Kielty Arborist Services (See Exhibit H) 10) Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). 11) Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. 12) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30 NOTE 1 NOTE 3 NOTE 4 NOTE 5 NOTE 6 NOTE 7 NOTE 1 NOTE 5 NOTE 6 NOTE 3 NOTE 7 Attachment 2 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 C D D E E 4 4 5 5 RIDGE RIDGE RI D G E PARTIALLY COLLAPSED SHED ROOF 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 2 11/22/2019 2:07:27 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_Sierra_Beatty Home_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt EXISTING ROOF PLAN 2-S2.2 NOV 22, 2019 SI E R R A A Z U L P R E S E R V E 17 8 2 0 A L M A B R I D G E R D . LO S G A T O S , C A BE A T T Y P R O P E R T Y H O M E 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 2 2 3D ISO VIEW Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date DR A F T PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN: ALTERNATIVE 2 1) Install pressure treated wood cribbing or shims to shore all post and bearing wall locations around perimeter that have observable moisture damage or are no longer in contact with the grade below. Stabilization shoring installed in a minimum 2x pattern per Corp of Engineers (or equivalent) is recommended for the cribbing shores. 2) All failed or failing portions of the existing shed roof along the south should be repaired, replaced in-kind or demolished entirely where permissible to minimize area required to be maintained by the District. 3) The dilapidated shed at the northeast corner, which appears to not be part of the original construction, should be dismantled and removed. 4) Diagonal 2x8 wood bracing with screwed connections should be installed on the interior face of the exterior walls and at cripple walls directly below (assume 10 linear feet along each exterior wall – 100 linear feet total). 5) Under this option, if it is not desirable for the perimeter access to the site to be fenced in per Option 1, it is recommended that all 17 existing glazed openings and doors around the exterior of the building should be assumed to be permanently covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. 6) Remove peeling, loose lead-containing paint from the exterior. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Repaint the exterior to match the original color. 7) Areas and/or elements of the building envelope that are deteriorated beyond repair should be replaced in-kind to match the original elements and construction techniques. Character-defining features such as the board-and batten siding, wood windows, and wood doors in particular should be repaired so that the building can best convey its historic form and significance. 8) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: a.Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b.Remove furnishings, trash and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc) and ensure it is broom-clean. c.Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d.Secure or modify utilities and mechanical systems. e.Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection, including 9) Remove the existing Redwood tree and Laurel tree that are in poor condition. Prune the Oak trees as outlines in Tree Protection Plan is outlined in Arborist report by Kielty Arborist Services (See Exhibit H) 10) Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). 11) Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. 12) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. NOTE 3 NOTE 4 NOTE 5 NOTE 6 NOTE 7 Attachment 2 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 C D D E E 4 4 5 5 14'-0"18'-2"22'-2"5'-9" 22 ' - 7 " 4' - 0 " 15'-3" 14 ' - 3 " 24 ' - 0 " SHED PANTRY (E) FRAMING EXPOSED, CL O S E T CL O S E T CL O S E T TUB WH SHED ROOF OUTLINE ABOVE 4'-3"4'-11"6'-6"3'-5" DOWN 4' - 8 " 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 3 11/22/2019 2:07:30 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_Sierra_Beatty Home_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 3-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 SI E R R A A Z U L P R E S E R V E 17 8 2 0 A L M A B R I D G E R D . LO S G A T O S , C A BE A T T Y P R O P E R T Y H O M E 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 3 2 3D ISO VIEW Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN: ALTERNATIVE 3 1) While the Beatty Property Home is currently unoccupied, the Basis of Design assumes that the current occupancy is classified as Residential and is proposed to be used as a limited retreat. The maximum occupancy of the structure was not investigated but assumed to be (5) based on the number of bedrooms. 2) Provide new structural members including: a) New concrete foundation: perimeter strip footing, interior strip footing, interior spread footings b) Crawlspace framing: replace existing interior posts, install perimeter cripple wall studs and plywood wall sheathing. c) Roof framing: replace existing planking with plywood sheathing, install new ridge boards and blocking, reinforce existing collar ties, replace failed members in kind, install new roofing. d) Wall framing: install plywood wall sheathing on interior at portions of perimeter wall, install new perimeter stud wall framing at portions of perimeter wall, install holdowns at new plywood wall segment ends e) Floor framing: replace missing or damage floor planking, install framing hardware, reinforce existing floor girders 3) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 4) Dismantle and remove the dilapidated shed at the northeast corner, which appears to not be part of the original construction. 5) Remove the asbestos-containing material and lead-containing paint in accordance with provisions specified in the Asbestos and Lead Survey (Exhibit D). 6) In addition to the general repairs that would be required to address the deterioration of various building components noted in the Conditions Assessment and the repair work described in Option 2, the following work should be anticipated for cost estimation purposes: a) Upgrade and reconnect plumbing and electrical service. b) Construct a new septic and potable water system. A well was observed approximately 200 feet southeast of the building but was not investigated and consumption safety is uncertain. The well will require testing to determine continued use. c) Install new flooring and toilet, lavatory, and shower/bath in the bathroom. d) Assuming a functional kitchen is desired for the new uses, install new cabinetry, a new sink and fixtures, and a new oven and stove. 7) Additional annual maintenance costs will include, but is not limited to, access maintenance, utilities (power, trash, etc.), pest and rodent management, tree maintenance, security and insurance. 8) A formal accessibility review was not part of the scope of this investigation; however, the following items were not compliant with the Building Code and should thoughtfully be designed for to not compromise the character-defining features of the building: a) None of the existing doors are level with exterior grade b) Clear space at building doors is less than the 29-1/2” allowed by Code c) There are multiple level changes of at least one step inside the building 9) Remove the existing Redwood tree and Laurel tree that are in poor condition. Prune the Oak trees as outlines in Tree Protection Plan is outlined in Arborist report by Kielty Arborist Services (See Exhibit H). 10) Remove wildlife waste products. 11) Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). NOTE 2a NOTE 2b NOTE 2d NOTE 2e NOTE 4 Inte inclu Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30 Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. 12) Inte 13) inclDR A F T Attachment 2 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 C D D E E 4 4 5 5 RIDGE RIDGE RI D G E PARTIALLY COLLAPSED SHED ROOF 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 3 11/22/2019 2:07:32 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_Sierra_Beatty Home_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt EXISTING ROOF PLAN 3-S2.2 NOV 22, 2019 SI E R R A A Z U L P R E S E R V E 17 8 2 0 A L M A B R I D G E R D . LO S G A T O S , C A BE A T T Y P R O P E R T Y H O M E 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 3 2 3D ISO VIEW Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 NOTE 2d NOTE 4 NOTE 2c BASIS OF DESIGN: ALTERNATIVE 3 1) While the Beatty Property Home is currently unoccupied, the Basis of Design assumes that the current occupancy is classified as Residential and is proposed to be used as a limited retreat. The maximum occupancy of the structure was not investigated but assumed to be (5) based on the number of bedrooms. 2) Provide new structural members including: a) New concrete foundation: perimeter strip footing, interior strip footing, interior spread footings b) Crawlspace framing: replace existing interior posts, install perimeter cripple wall studs and plywood wall sheathing. c) Roof framing: replace existing planking with plywood sheathing, install new ridge boards and blocking, reinforce existing collar ties, replace failed members in kind, install new roofing. d) Wall framing: install plywood wall sheathing on interior at portions of perimeter wall, install new perimeter stud wall framing at portions of perimeter wall, install holdowns at new plywood wall segment ends e) Floor framing: replace missing or damage floor planking, install framing hardware, reinforce existing floor girders 3) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 4) Dismantle and remove the dilapidated shed at the northeast corner, which appears to not be part of the original construction. 5) Remove the asbestos-containing material and lead-containing paint in accordance with provisions specified in the Asbestos and Lead Survey (Exhibit D). 6) In addition to the general repairs that would be required to address the deterioration of various building components noted in the Conditions Assessment and the repair work described in Option 2, the following work should be anticipated for cost estimation purposes: a) Upgrade and reconnect plumbing and electrical service. b) Construct a new septic and potable water system. A well was observed approximately 200 feet southeast of the building but was not investigated and consumption safety is uncertain. The well will require testing to determine continued use. c) Install new flooring and toilet, lavatory, and shower/bath in the bathroom. d) Assuming a functional kitchen is desired for the new uses, install new cabinetry, a new sink and fixtures, and a new oven and stove. 7) Additional annual maintenance costs will include, but is not limited to, access maintenance, utilities (power, trash, etc.), pest and rodent management, tree maintenance, security and insurance. 8) A formal accessibility review was not part of the scope of this investigation; however, the following items were not compliant with the Building Code and should thoughtfully be designed for to not compromise the character-defining features of the building: a) None of the existing doors are level with exterior grade b) Clear space at building doors is less than the 29-1/2” allowed by Code c) There are multiple level changes of at least one step inside the building 9) Remove the existing Redwood tree and Laurel tree that are in poor condition. Prune the Oak trees as outlines in Tree Protection Plan is outlined in Arborist report by Kielty Arborist Services (See Exhibit H). 10) Remove wildlife waste products. 11) Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30 Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. 12) Inte 13) inclDR A F T Attachment 2 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 C D D E E 4 4 5 5 14'-0"18'-2"22'-2"5'-9" 22 ' - 7 " 4' - 0 " 15'-3" 14 ' - 3 " 24 ' - 0 " SHEDPANTRY (E) FRAMING EXPOSED, CL O S E T CL O S E T CL O S E T TUB WH SHED ROOF OUTLINE ABOVE 4'-3"4'-11"6'-6"3'-5" DOWN 4' - 8 " DEMO 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 4 11/22/2019 2:07:34 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_Sierra_Beatty Home_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 4-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 SI E R R A A Z U L P R E S E R V E 17 8 2 0 A L M A B R I D G E R D . LO S G A T O S , C A BE A T T Y P R O P E R T Y H O M E 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 4 2 3D ISO VIEW DEMO Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN: ALTERNATIVE 4 Demolishing the structure, which has been determined an historic resource, may require1) DR A F T additional processes to obtain demolition permits. 2) Removal of all hazardous materials prior to demolition of the building (See Exhibit D). 3) The site landscaping would be rehabilitated to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. 4) Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre-demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site. 5) The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. 6) Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this option is dependent upon regulatory approval process. 7) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30 Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 22 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA APPENDIX C – SUMMARY DATA SHEET DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 23 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA Summary Data Sheet BUILDING DATA Building Name: Beatty Property Home Date: 10/17/19 Building Address: 17820 Alma Road in Santa Clara County, Sierra Azul Preserve Open Space Latitude: 37.1908 Longitude: -121.9856 By: Year Built: 1866-1877 Year(s) Remodeled: N/A Original Design Code: None Area (sf): 1,440 Length (ft): 55 Width (ft): 38 No. of Stories: 1 Story Height (ft): 8 Total Height (ft): 12 USE Industrial Office Warehouse Hospital Residential Educational Other: CONSTRUCTION DATA Gravity Load Structural System: Wood sheathing, joists, girders. Exterior Transverse Walls: Wood framed Openings? Yes Exterior Longitudinal Walls: Wood framed Openings? Yes Roof Materials/Framing: See gravity load system. Intermediate Floors/Framing: N/A Ground Floor: Wood planking, wood joists, wood girders Columns: Wood posts Foundation: Wood sleepers General Condition of Structure: Poor Levels Below Grade? none Special Features and Comments: LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM Longitudinal Transverse System: Wood siding shear walls Wood siding shear walls Vertical Elements: Wood siding Wood siding Diaphragms: 1x horizontal lumber sheathing 1x horizontal lumber sheathing Connections: Toenails Toenails EVALUATION DATA BSE-1N Spectral Response Accelerations: SDS= 1.554 SD1= 0.962 Soil Factors: Class= C Fa= 1.0 Fv= 1.3 BSE-1E Spectral Response Accelerations: SXS= 2.777 SX1= 1.283 Level of Seismicity: BSE-2E Performance Level: S-5 Building Period: T= 0.112 Spectral Acceleration: Sa= 1.27g Modification Factor: CmC1C2= 1.300 Building Weight: W= 32 kips Pseudo Lateral Force: V=CmC1C2SaW= 53 kips DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 24 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA BUILDING CLASSIFICATION: W2 – Wood Frames Commercial and Industrial REQUIRED TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Yes No Basic Configuration Checklist Building Type W2 Structural Checklist Nonstructural Component Checklist FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIREMENT: Tier 2 analysis on (11) structural deficiencies Material Properties To account for uncertainty in the as-built data, a knowledge factor, κ, is determined according to ASCE 41 Table 6-1. Where material properties are not listed in existing construction documents, a knowledge factor of κ=0.75 shall be applied to the component capacities for deformation-controlled and force-controlled actions. Default Value per ASCE 41, 4.2.3? Alternate Value Source? Concrete Table (4-2) Foundation Footings: f’c= 2,000 psi Slabs: f’c= 2,000 psi Reinforcing Steel Table (4-3) #3 Bars: fy= 40,000 psi #4 Bars and Larger: fy= 40,000 psi Carpentry Wall studs and light Framing Members Unknown Sheathing – Horizontal 1x lumber Sawn Lumber Posts, Timbers, beams and Stringers Construction Grade DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home | 25 Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA APPENDIX D – TIER 1 CHECKLISTS AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS DR A F T Attachment 2 Job #19235 17-1 Very Low Seismicity Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 Beatty Property Home Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path,including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer theinertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1) WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependenton the diaphragm for lateral support are anchored for out-of-plane forcesat each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps thatare developed into the diaphragm. Connections have adequate strength toresist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure ofSection 4.4.3.7. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.1) Table 17-1. Very Low Seismicity Checklist Structural Components C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 2 Job #19235 17-2 Basic Configuration (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 Beatty Property Home Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1) ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.25%of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 0.5% in moderate seismicity, and 1.5% in high seismicity. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.2) MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.3) WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above. (Commentary: Sec. A2.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.1) Inadequate number of bays of braced frames are provided. Due lack of redundancy, further evaluation of the braced frames is required to ensure structural adequacy. SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force-resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.2) VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force- resisting system are continuous to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.3) GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.5. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.4) MASS:There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.6. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.5) TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.6) Moderate Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Geologic Site Hazards Table 17-2. Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist Low Seismicity Building System—General Building System—Building Configuration C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 2 Job #19235 17-2 Basic Configuration (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 Beatty Property Home Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. Table 17-2. Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.1. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquake- induced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.2. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.3. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) OVERTURNING:The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-force- resisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6Sa. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.3) TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS:The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.4) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Moderate Seismicity) Foundation Configuration C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 2 Job #19235 17-4 W1 & W1a (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 Beatty Property Home Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Table 17-4. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types W1 and W1a Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1) Non Compliant below the ground floor SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1): Structural panel sheathing 1,000 lb/ft Diagonal sheathing 700 lb/ft Straight sheathing 100 lb/ft All other conditions 100 lb/ft By observation no shear walls at crawl space STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.5. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.2) No positive connection of walls thru floor level are evident HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-1. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.6. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.3) No shear walls present CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.4) No shear walls present OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.8. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.5) WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) None present by obsevation Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System Connections C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 2 Job #19235 17-4 W1 & W1a (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 Beatty Property Home Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Table 17-4. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types W1 and W1a Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) None present by obsevation GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1) None present by obsevation WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 6 ft or less with proper edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) None present by obsevation DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1) ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1) STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) Only Horiz. Lumber sheathing is present, no diagonal lumber or structural panels used in existing diaphragm construction. DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft and shall have aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Connections Diaphragms C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 2 Job #19235 Seismic Hazard (Tier 1) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 Beatty Property Home Assessment SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS ASCE 41-17 §2.4 Site Coordinates Latitude =37.1908 deg Beatty Property Home Condition Assessment Longitude =-121.9856 deg Santa Clara County Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters ASCE 41-17 §2.4.1.4 Site Class =C Site Soil Classification SS =1.058 g Mapped Short-period Spectral Response Acceleration S1 =0.378 g Mapped 1-sec period Spectral Response Acceleration SXS =1.270 g Short-period Spectral Response Acceleration at BSE-1E SX1 =0.567 g 1-sec period Spectral Response Acceleration at BSE-1E SEISMIC FORCE ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2 Building Properties Type N/S =W1 Building Type in North-South Direction ASCE 41-17 Table 3-1 Type E/W =W1 Building Type in East-West Direction ASCE 41-17 Table 3-1 Height, hn =10.00 ft Height above base to roof level Stories =1 Number of stories Weight N/S =32.0 k Seismic Weight of Building in North-South Direction Weight E/W =32.0 k Seismic Weight of Building in East-West Direction Building Period ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2.4 North-South Direction: Ct =0.02 Period Adjustment Factor β =0.75 Empirical Fundamental Period Adjustment Factor T =0.112 sec Fundamental Period =C t *h n β East-West Direction: Ct =0.02 Period Adjustment Factor β =0.75 Empirical Fundamental Period Adjustment Factor T =0.112 sec Fundamental Period =C t *h n β Pseudo-Seismic Force ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2.1 North-South Direction: Sa =1.27 g Spectral Response Acceleration =S x1 /T < S xs C =1.30 Modification Factor Table 4-8 V =1.65 *W Pseudo-Seismic Force in Terms of Weight =C*Sa*W V =52.8 k Pseudo-Seismic Force East-West Direction: Sa =1.27 g Spectral Response Acceleration =S x1 /T < S xs C =1.30 Modification Factor Table 4-8 V =1.65 *W Pseudo-Seismic Force in Terms of Weight =C*Sa*W V =52.8 k Pseudo-Seismic Force DR A F T Attachment 2 Job #19235 Wood SW Shear Stress Check Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 Beatty Property Home Assessment WOOD SHEAR WALL SHEAR STRESS CHECK ASCE 41-13 §A.3.2.7.1 Definition: 1000 plf 700 plf 100 plf 100 plf P.O. =CP Performance objective Sheathing = v cap =100 plf Shear capacity of shear wall v j avg =(1 / Ms) (Vj / Lnet)Average shear stress in shear walls V j =Story shear at level j L wall =Total length of shear wall L opngs =Total length of openings in shear wall L net =Net length of shear wall M s =4.00 System modification factor per Table 4-9 North-South Level Gridline Vj Lwall Lopngs Lnet vjavg DCR k ft ft ft plf Level 1 1 2.6 32.0 14.0 18.0 2 13.6 28.0 0.0 28.0 3 20.6 54.0 7.0 47.0 4 12.8 25.0 9.0 16.0 5 3.3 15.0 3.5 11.5 6 0.0 TOTAL 52.8 154.0 33.5 120.5 110 1.10 All other conditions Straight sheathing The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.5.3.3, is less than the following values (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1): Wood Shear Wall Shear Capacity Structural panel sheathing Diagonal sheathing Straight sheathing DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT C Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers DR A F T Attachment 2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BEATTY PROPERTY HOME STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SIERRA AZUL PRESERVE SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for ZFA Structural Engineers 1390 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Carlos, California 94070 October 2019 Project No. 4907-3 DR A F T Attachment 2 October 11, 2019 4907-2 ZFA Structural Engineers 1390 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Carlos, California 94070 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION BEATTY PROPERTY HOME MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT - SIERRA AZUL PRESERVE SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Attention: Mr. Steve Patton, P.E. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the structural stabilization of the Beatty property home located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul Preserve in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County near Los Gatos, California. The accompanying report summarizes the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, and presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. We refer you to the text of our report for specific recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions or comments concerning the findings or recommendations from our investigation, please call. Very truly yours, ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucas J. Ottoboni, P.E. Glenn A. Romig, P.E., G.E. Copies: Addressee (1 + via email) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (via email) Attn: Ms. Tanisha Werner GAR:LO:pf 1390 El Camino Real, Second Floor | San Carlos, CA 94070 | (650) 591-5224 | www.romigengineers.com DR A F T Attachment 2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION – BEATTY PROPERTY HOME MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1390 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070 PREPARED BY: ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. 1390 EL CAMINO REAL, SECOND FLOOR SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070 OCTOBER 2019 DR A F T Attachment 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Letter of transmittal Title Page TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 Project Description ................................................................................................1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................1 Limitations .............................................................................................................2 SITE EXPLORATION AND RECONNAISSANCE ...................................................2 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................3 Subsurface Conditions ...........................................................................................3 Ground Water ........................................................................................................3 GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................4 Faulting and Seismicity .........................................................................................4 Table 1. Earthquake Magnitudes and Historical Earthquakes .....................5 Earthquake Design Parameters ..............................................................................6 Table 2. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ...............................................6 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................6 FOUNDATIONS ...........................................................................................................7 Shallow Foundations .............................................................................................7 Lateral Loads .........................................................................................................8 Settlement ..............................................................................................................8 SLABS-ON-GRADE .....................................................................................................8 Interior Slabs .........................................................................................................9 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................10 Clearing and Subgrade Preparation .....................................................................10 Material For Fill ..................................................................................................10 Compaction ..........................................................................................................11 Table 3. Compaction Recommendations ...................................................11 Temporary Slopes and Excavations ....................................................................11 Finished Slopes ....................................................................................................12 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................12 FUTURE SERVICES ..................................................................................................12 Plan Review .........................................................................................................12 Construction Observation and Testing ................................................................13 DR A F T Attachment 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) REFERENCES FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN FIGURE 3 - VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 4 - REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION Figure A-1 - Key to Exploratory Boring Logs Figure A-2 - Key to Bedrock Descriptions Exploratory Boring Logs EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS Figure B-1 - Plasticity Chart DR A F T Attachment 2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION – BEATTY PROPERTY HOME MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed structural stabilization of the Beatty property home located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul Preserve in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County near Los Gatos, California. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. Project Description The project consists of improving or abandoning the Beatty property home in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul Preserve. Since the options to abandon the structure will not require engineering solutions, those options have not been addressed in our report. If improved, the existing structure will either be stabilized to allow for exterior viewing only or as a limited use retreat. We also note that it is possible that the structure may be relocated. If this option is explored, we should be contacted to update our report, as the recommendations in this report only apply to the structure where it exists currently. Scope of Work The scope of our work for this investigation was presented in our agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers, dated June 25, 2019. In order to accomplish our investigation, we performed the following work. • Review of geologic, geotechnical, and seismic conditions in the vicinity of the site. • Subsurface exploration consisting of drilling and logging three exploratory borings near the existing structure. • Laboratory testing of selected samples to aid in soil classification and to help evaluate the engineering properties of the soil and bedrock encountered at the site. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 2 of 13 • Engineering analysis and evaluation of surface and subsurface data to develop earthwork guidelines and foundation design criteria for the project. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of ZFA Structural Engineers for specific application to developing geotechnical design criteria for the proposed structural stabilization of the Beatty property home located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Sierra Azul Preserve in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County near Los Gatos, California. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, for the services performed for this project. Our services have been performed in accordance with the geotechnical engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. This report was prepared to provide engineering opinions and recommendations only. In the event there are any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project, or if any future improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should not be considered valid unless: 1) the project changes are reviewed by us, and; 2) the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are modified or verified in writing. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation; the currently planned improvements; review of readily available reports relevant to the site conditions; and laboratory test results. In addition, it should be recognized that certain limitations are inherent in the evaluation of subsurface conditions, and that certain conditions may not be detected during an investigation of this type. Changes in the information or data gained from any of these sources could result in changes in our conclusions or recommendations. If such changes occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in light of those changes. SITE EXPLORATION AND RECONNAISSANCE Site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration were performed on September 9, 2019. Subsurface exploration was performed using portable Minuteman drilling and sampling equipment. Three exploratory borings were advanced to sampler refusal conditions at depths of 7.8 to 10 feet. The locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The boring logs and the results of our laboratory tests performed on samples collected during our investigation are attached in Appendices A and B, respectively. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 3 of 13 Surface Conditions The site is located within the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve east of the Lexington Reservoir east of Alma Bridge Road. At the time of our investigation, the site was occupied by a single-story residence with wood-siding exterior. The area immediately surrounding the residence was vegetated with native grasses and medium to larger trees. The residence was situated on a relatively flat pad which sloped down gently to the west. Beyond the relatively flat pad (about 15 to 20 feet away from the perimeter of the residence), the site slopes down to the north and south sides at a declination of about 3:1 to 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). At the west side, an over-steepened road cut slopes down to Alma Bridge Road at a declination of about 1.5: to 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). The residence appeared to be supported on wood foundations at the perimeter and interior which were in direct contact with the earth. The existing residence was generally in poor condition with some of the wood siding and wood flooring observed to be deteriorating. The wood members in direct contact with the earth appeared to be rotted/deteriorating/weak. Subsurface Conditions At the location of our exploratory borings, we generally encountered claystone and sandstone bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation which extended to the maximum depths explored of 8 feet, 7.8 feet, 10 feet in Borings EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. We also note that we encountered 3 feet of clayey sand in the upper portion of Boring EB-1. A free-swell test performed on a sample of bedrock obtained in Boring EB-3 indicated a free swell value of 40 percent. This free-swell test result along with our experience suggests the bedrock tested has a low potential for expansion. Ground Water Free ground water was not encountered in the borings during our investigation. The borings were backfilled with grout immediately after drilling and sampling was completed; therefore, a stabilized ground water level was not obtained. Please be cautioned that fluctuations in the level of ground water can occur due to variations in rainfall, landscaping, underground drainage patterns, and other factors. It is also possible and perhaps even likely that perched ground water conditions could develop in the soils and near the surface of the bedrock during and after significant rainfall or due to landscape watering at the property and the upslope areas. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 4 of 13 GEOLOGIC SETTING We have briefly reviewed our local experience and the geologic literature pertinent to the general site area. The information reviewed indicates that the site is located in a chaotic geologic setting mapped as being underlain by undivided alluvial terrace deposits (Qt), Santa Clara Formation bedrock (QTsc) and Mélange of the Central belt (fm), McLaughlin et al. (2001). The alluvial terrace deposits are expected to consist of boulders, gravel, sand, silt, and soil deposited in stream and alluvial fan settings. The Santa Clara Formation bedrock is described as consisting of sandstone and siltstone and locally includes thinly bedded mudstone. The Mélange is described as consisting of a matrix of sheared argillite and lithic metasandstone metamorphosed to pumpellyite- and locally to lawsonite-bearing assemblages. The mélange matrix typically exhibits as a weak to moderate clastic structure and may also include chert, limestone, and mafic igneous rocks. The geology of the site vicinity is shown on the Vicinity Geologic Map, Figure 3. The lot and immediate site vicinity are located in a moderately sloping hillside area east of the Lexington Reservoir at an elevation of approximately 700 feet above sea level, Figure 1. Faulting and Seismicity There are no mapped through-going faults within or adjacent to the site and the site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone), an area where the potential for fault rupture is considered probable. The closest active fault is the San Andreas fault, which is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the property. Thus, the likelihood of surface rupture occurring from active faulting at the site is low. In addition, we note that the site is located in a Santa Clara County fault zone due to the proximity of the Lexington fault. Based on Cross Section D-D prepared by McLaughlin et al. (2001), the site appears to be located west of the interpreted fault. Since the project scope does not include an increase in size or footprint of the structure, but instead, consists of voluntary improvements to an existing structure, evaluation of the potential for fault rupture was not included in our investigation of the site. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 5 of 13 The San Francisco Bay Area is an active seismic region. Earthquakes in the region result from strain energy constantly accumulating because of the northwestward movement of the Pacific Plate relative to the North American Plate. On average about 1.6-inches of movement occur per year. Historically, the Bay Area has experienced large, destructive earthquakes in 1838, 1868, 1906, and 1989. The faults considered most likely to produce large earthquakes in the area include the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Gregorio fault is located approximately 18 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults are located approximately 16 and 18 miles northeast of the site, respectively. These faults and significant earthquakes that have been documented in the Bay Area are listed in Table 1, and are shown on the Regional Fault and Seismicity Map, Figure 4. Table 1. Earthquake Magnitudes and Historical Earthquakes Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Santa Clara County, California Maximum Historical Estimated Fault Magnitude (Mw) Earthquakes Magnitude San Andreas 7.9 1989 Loma Prieta 6.9 1906 San Francisco 7.9 1865 N. of 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake 6.5 1838 San Francisco-Peninsula Segment 6.8 1836 East of Monterey 6.5 Hayward 7.1 1868 Hayward 6.8 1858 Hayward 6.8 Calaveras 6.8 1984 Morgan Hill 6.2 1911 Morgan Hill 6.2 1897 Gilroy 6.3 San Gregorio 7.3 1926 Monterey Bay 6.1 In the future, the subject property will undoubtedly experience severe ground shaking during moderate and large magnitude earthquakes produced along the San Andreas fault or other active Bay Area fault zones. Using information from recent earthquakes, improved mapping of active faults, ground motion prediction modeling, and a new model for estimating earthquake probabilities, a panel of experts convened by the U.S.G.S. have concluded there is a 72 percent chance for at least one earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or larger in the Bay Area before 2043. The Hayward fault has the highest likelihood of an earthquake greater than or equal to magnitude 6.7 in the Bay Area, estimated at 33 percent, while the likelihood on the San Andreas and Calaveras faults is estimated at approximately 22 and 26 percent, respectively (Aagaard et al., 2016). DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 6 of 13 Earthquake Design Parameters The State of California currently requires that buildings and structures be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions presented in the 2016 California Building Code and in ASCE 7-10, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.” Based on site geologic conditions and on information from our subsurface exploration at the site, the site may be classified as Site Class C, very dense soil and soft rock, in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10. Spectral Response Acceleration parameters and site coefficients may be taken directly from the U.S.G.S. website based on the longitude and latitude of the site. For site latitude (37.1908), longitude (-121.9856) and Site Class C, design parameters are presented on Table 2 on the following page. Table 2. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Santa Clara County, California Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Design Value Mapped Value for Short Period - SS 2.331 Mapped Value for 1-sec Period - S1 1.111 Site Coefficient - Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient - Fv 1.3 Adjusted for Site Class - SMS 2.331 Adjusted for Site Class - SM1 1.444 Value for Design Earthquake - SDS 1.554 Value for Design Earthquake - SD1 0.962 CONCLUSIONS From a geotechnical viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed structural stabilization of the Beatty property home, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed during design and construction. Specific geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this report. The primary geotechnical concern for the proposed project is the potential for severe ground shaking at the site during a major earthquake. In our opinion, the residence may be retrofitted to be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on bedrock. Specific geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this report. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 7 of 13 Because subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the location of our borings, and to observe that our recommendations are properly implemented, we recommend that we be retained to 1) review the project plans for conformance with our recommendations; and 2) observe and test during earthwork and foundation construction. FOUNDATIONS Shallow Foundations In our opinion, the Beatty property home may be retrofitted/supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing in undisturbed weathered bedrock. The footings should have a width of at least 15 inches and should extend at least 24 inches below exterior grade, 18 inches below the bottom of concrete slabs-on-grades, and 15 inches below the crawl space grade, whichever is deeper. Footings should extend at least 6 inches into bedrock if this requires a deeper embedment than stated above. Lowest adjacent finished grade should be considered to be the lowest grade within 5 feet of the edge of the foundation. Footings with at least these minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads with a one-third increase allowed when considering additional short-term wind or seismic loading. All footings located adjacent to utility lines should be embedded below a 1:1 plane extending up from the bottom edge of the utility trench. All continuous footings should be reinforced with top and bottom steel, to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. The bottom of all footing excavations should be cleaned of loose or soft soil and/or disturbed bedrock or debris. A member of our staff should observe the footing excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel to confirm that they expose suitable material, have at least the recommended minimum dimensions, and have been properly cleaned. If soil and/or disturbed bedrock or debris is encountered in the foundation excavations, our field representative will require these materials be removed and a deeper footing embedment depth before the reinforcing steel and concrete is placed. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 8 of 13 Since the existing foundations were constructed with no geotechnical observation, and the depth and width of the foundations are unknown, there is more uncertainty concerning their performance than for the new footings for the addition. If the structural load on the existing foundations will be increased significantly, it may be prudent to selectively underpin the foundations as needed to reduce post-construction differential settlement due to the new loads from the proposed addition. When the existing foundations are exposed during construction, the design and construction team should observe their condition and determine if any remedial measures or supplemental recommendations would be appropriate. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footings and the supporting subgrade. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed for design. In addition to friction, lateral resistance may also be provided by passive soil pressure acting against the sides of foundations cast neat in footing or backfilled with properly compacted structural fill. We recommend assuming an equivalent fluid pressure of 400 pounds per cubic foot for passive soil resistance, where appropriate. The upper foot of passive soil resistance should be neglected where soil adjacent to the foundations is not covered and protected by a concrete slab or pavement. Settlement Thirty-year post-construction differential settlement due to static loads is not expected to exceed about 3/4-inch across the proposed residence supported on new foundations, provided foundations are designed and constructed as recommended. SLABS-ON-GRADE General Slab Considerations To reduce the potential for movement of at-grade slabs, at least the upper 6-inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified and compacted at a moisture content slightly above the laboratory optimum value. The soil subgrade should be kept moist up until the time the non-expansive fill, aggregate base, and/or vapor barrier is placed. Slab subgrades and non-expansive fill should be prepared and compacted as recommended in the section of this report titled “Earthwork.” Overly soft or moist soils should be removed from slab- on-grade areas. Exterior flatwork should be underlain by a layer of non-expansive fill as recommended below. The non-expansive fill should consist of Class 2 aggregate base or clayey soil with a Plasticity Index of 15 or less. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 9 of 13 Considering the potential for some differential movement of the surface and near-surface soils, we expect that reinforced slabs will perform better than unreinforced slabs. Consideration should be given to using a control joint spacing on the order of 2 feet in each direction for each inch of slab thickness. Exterior Flatwork Concrete walkways and exterior flatwork should be at least 4 inches thick and should be constructed on at least 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. We recommend that exterior slabs-on-grade, such as for patios, be constructed with a thickened edge to improve edge stiffness and to reduce the potential for water seepage under the edge of the slabs and into the underlying base and subgrade. In our opinion, the thickened edges should be at least 8 inches wide and should extend at least 4 inches below the bottom of the underlying aggregate base layer. Interior Slabs At-grade interior slab-on-grade floors, if any, should be constructed on a layer of non- expansive fill at least 6 inches thick. Recycled aggregate base should not be used for non-expansive fill below interior slabs-on-grade, since adverse vapor could occur from crushed asphalt components. In areas where dampness of concrete floor slabs would be undesirable, such as within the garage and building interior, concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 6 inches of free-draining gravel, such as ½- to ¾-inch clean crushed rock with no more than 5 percent passing the ASTM No. 200 sieve. Pea gravel should not be used for this capillary break material. The crushed rock layer should be compacted and leveled with vibratory equipment. The crushed rock layer may be considered as the non-expansive fill recommended above. To reduce vapor transmission up through at-grade concrete floor slabs, the crushed rock section should be covered with a high quality vapor barrier conforming to the requirements of ASTM E 1745 Class A, with a water vapor transmission rate less than or equal to 0.01 perms (such as 15-mil thick “Stego Wrap Class A”). The vapor barrier should be placed directly below the concrete slab. Sand above the vapor barrier is not recommended. The vapor barrier should be installed in accordance with ASTM E 1643. All seams and penetrations of the vapor barrier should be sealed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 10 of 13 The permeability of concrete is affected significantly by the water cement ratio of the mix, with lower ratios producing more damp-resistant slabs and being stronger structurally. Where moisture protection is important and/or where the concrete will be placed directly on the vapor barrier, the water-to-cement ratio should be 0.45 or less. To increase the workability of the concrete, mid-range plasticizers can be added to the mix. Water should not be added to the mix unless the slump is less than specified and the ratio will not exceed 0.45. Other steps that may be taken to reduce moisture transmission through the slab (or mat) include moist curing for 5 to 7 days and allowing the slab to dry for a period of two months or longer prior to placing floor coverings. Also, prior to installation of the floor covering, it may be appropriate to test the slab moisture content for adherence to the manufacturer’s requirements to determine whether a longer drying time is necessary. EARTHWORK Clearing and Subgrade Preparation All deleterious materials, such as existing foundations, slabs, utilities to be abandoned, existing fill, vegetation, root systems, and topsoil, should be cleared from areas of the site to be built or paved on. The actual stripping depth should be determined by a member of our staff in the field at the time of construction. Excavations that extend below finished grade should be backfilled with structural fill that is water-conditioned, placed, and compacted as recommended in the section titled “Compaction.” After the site has been properly cleared, stripped, and excavated to the required grades, exposed soil surfaces in areas to receive structural fill or concrete slabs-on-grade should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted as recommended in the section of this report titled "Compaction." Material For Fill All on-site soil containing less than 3 percent organic material by weight (ASTM D2974) should be suitable for use as structural fill. Structural fill should not contain rocks or pieces larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension and no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. Imported non-expansive fill should have a Plasticity Index no greater than 15, should be predominately granular, and should have sufficient binder so as not to slough or cave into foundation excavations and utility trenches. Recycled aggregate base should not be used for non-expansive fill at building interior. A member of our staff should approve proposed import materials prior to their delivery to the site. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 11 of 13 Compaction Scarified soil surfaces and all structural fill should be compacted in uniform lifts no thicker than 8 inches in pre-compacted thickness, conditioned to the appropriate moisture content, and compacted as recommended for structural fill in Table 3. The relative compaction and moisture content recommended in Table 3 is relative to ASTM Test D1557, latest edition. Table 3. Compaction Recommendations Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Santa Clara County, California General Relative Compaction* Moisture Content* • Scarified subgrade in areas 90 percent Above optimum to receive fill or slabs. • Structural fill composed 90 percent Above optimum of non-expansive fill or native soil. • Structural fill below a 93 percent Above optimum depth of 5 feet. Pavement Areas • Upper 6-inches of soil 95 percent Near optimum below aggregate base. • Aggregate base. 95 percent Near optimum Utility Trench Backfill • On-site soil. 90 percent Near optimum • Imported sand 95 percent Near optimum * Relative to ASTM Test D1557, latest edition. Temporary Slopes and Excavations The contractor should be responsible for the design and construction of all temporary slopes and any required shoring. Shoring and bracing should be provided in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Because of the potential for variation of the on-site soils, field modification of temporary cut slopes and shoring may be required. Unstable materials encountered on slopes during and after excavation should be trimmed off even if this requires cutting the slopes back to a flatter inclination. DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 12 of 13 Protection of the structures near excavations and trenches should also be the responsibility of the contractor. In our experience, a preconstruction survey is generally performed to document existing conditions prior to construction, with intermittent monitoring of the structures during construction. Finished Slopes We recommend that new finished slopes be cut or filled to an inclination no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Exposed slopes may be subject to minor sloughing and erosion that could require periodic maintenance. We recommend that all slopes and soil surfaces disturbed during construction be planted to with erosion resistant vegetation. Surface Drainage Finished grades should be designed to prevent ponding of water and to direct surface water runoff away from foundations, edges of slabs, and pavements, and toward suitable collection and discharge facilities. Slopes of at least 2 percent are recommended for flatwork and pavement areas with 5 percent preferred in landscape areas within 8 feet of the structures, where possible. At a minimum, splash blocks should be provided at the discharge ends of roof downspouts to carry water away from perimeter foundations. Preferably, roof downspout water should be collected in a closed pipe system that is routed to a storm drain system or other suitable location. Drainage facilities should be observed to verify that they are adequate and that no adjustments need to be made, especially during the first two years following construction. We recommend preparing an as-built plan showing the locations of surface and subsurface drain lines and clean-outs. The drainage facilities should be periodically checked to verify that they are continuing to function properly. It is likely the drainage facilities will need to be periodically cleaned of silt and debris that may build up in the lines. FUTURE SERVICES Plan Review Romig Engineers should review the completed grading and foundation plans for conformance with the recommendations contained in this report. We should be provided with these plans as soon as possible upon completion in order to limit the potential for delays in the permitting process that might otherwise be attributed to our review process. In addition, it should be noted that many of the local building and planning departments now require “clean” geotechnical plan review letters prior to acceptance of plans for their DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA Structural Engineers Beatty Property Home Structural Stabilization Page 13 of 13 final review. Since our plan reviews typically result in recommendations for modification of the plans, our generation of a “clean” review letter often requires two iterations. At a minimum, we recommend that the following note be added to the plans: “Earthwork, foundation construction, slab subgrade and non-expansive fill preparation, utility trench backfill, pavement construction and site drainage should be performed in accordance with the geotechnical report prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated October 11, 2019. Romig Engineers should be notified at least 48 hours in advance of any earthwork or foundation construction and should observe and test during earthwork and foundation construction as recommended in the geotechnical report.” Construction Observation and Testing The earthwork and foundation phases of construction should be observed and tested by us to: 1) confirm that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design; 2) observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and 3) allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations presented in this report are based on a limited amount of subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations are exposed during construction, it will be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations.      DR A F T Attachment 2 REFERENCES Aagaard, B.T., Blair, J.L., Boatwright, J., Garcia, S.H., Harris, R.A., Michael, A.J., Schwartz, D.P., and DiLeo, J.S., 2016, Earthquake outlook for the San Francisco Bay region 2014–2043 (ver. 1.1, August 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2016–3020, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20163020. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-10. California Building Standards Commission, and International Code Council, 2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), 1994, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. California Geological Survey, 2019, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Woodside 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 129. McLaughlin, R.J., Clark J.C., Brabb, E.E., Helley, E.J., 2001, Geologic Maps and Structure Sections of the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley and Southern Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California, USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies MF-2373, Sheet 1: Los Gatos Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000. U.S.G.S., 2018, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, Earthquake Hazards Program, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.      DR A F T Attachment 2 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet Base is United States Geological Survey Los Gatos 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, dated 2012. VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 SITE DR A F T Attachment 2 LEGEND EB-2 Approximate Locations of Exploratory Borings. Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 40 feet. Base is an undated topographic survey provided to us. SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 EB-1 EB-2 EB-3 ALMA BRIDGE ROAD DR A F T Attachment 2 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Alluvial terrace deposits,Geologic Contact - dashed where undivided approximate, dotted where inferred. Santa Clara Formation Fault - dashed where approximate, dotted where inferred. Melange of the Central belt Fault - thrust or reverse Basaltic volcanic rock blocks Strike and dip of bedding Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet Base is Geologic Map of southwestern Santa Clara Valley and southern Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, California (McLaughlin, Clark, Brabb, Helley, and Colon, 2001) VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 SITE MAP LEGEND 35 SITE DR A F T Attachment 2 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Earthquakes with M5+ from 1900 to 1980, M2.5+ from 1980 to January 2015. Faults with activity in last 15,000 years. Based on data sources from Northern California Earthquake Data Center and USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, accessed May 2015. REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP FIGURE 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 SITE Magnitude Year 0 3 6 12 milesDR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The soils and bedrock encountered during drilling were logged by our representative and samples were obtained at depths appropriate to the investigation. The samples were taken to our laboratory where they were examined and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The logs of our borings, as well as a summary of the soil classification system (Figure A-1) and bedrock descriptions (Figure A-2) used on the logs, are attached. Several tests were performed in the field during drilling. The standard penetration test resistance was determined by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall and recording the blows required to drive the 2-inch (outside diameter) sampler 18 inches. The standard penetration test (SPT) resistance is the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches and is recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate depths. Soil samples were also collected using 2.5-inch and 3.0-inch O.D. drive samplers. The blow counts shown on the logs for these larger diameter samplers do not represent SPT values and have not been corrected in any way. The locations and elevations of the borings were established by pacing using the site plan provided to us. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The boring logs and related information depict our interpretation of subsurface conditions only at the specific location and time indicated. Subsurface conditions and ground water levels at other locations may differ from conditions at the locations where sampling was conducted. The passage of time may also result in changes in the subsurface conditions.      DR A F T Attachment 2 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SOIL TYPE CLEAN GRAVEL GW Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. COARSE GRAVEL (< 5% Fines) GP Poorly graded gravel or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. GRAINED GRAVEL with GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. SOILS FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. (< 50 % Fines)CLEAN SAND SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SAND (< 5% Fines) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. SAND SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. WITH FINES SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, with slight plasticity. FINE SILT AND CLAY CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, lean clays. GRAINED Liquid limit < 50%OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. SOILS MH Inorganic silt, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soil. (> 50 % Fines) SILT AND CLAY CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Liquid limit > 50%OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. BEDROCK BR Weathered bedrock. RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SAND & GRAVEL BLOWS/FOOT* SILT & CLAY STRENGTH^BLOWS/FOOT* VERY LOOSE 0 to 4 VERY SOFT 0 to 0.25 0 to 2 LOOSE 4 to 10 SOFT 0.25 to 0.5 2 to 4 MEDIUM DENSE 10 to 30 FIRM 0.5 to 1 4 to 8 DENSE 30 to 50 STIFF 1 to 2 8 to 16 VERY DENSE OVER 50 VERY STIFF 2 to 4 16 to 32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT & CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12 " 3" 0.75" 4 10 40 200 SIEVE OPENINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System; fines refer to soil passing a No. 200 sieve. * Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance, using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler; blow counts not corrected for larger diameter samplers. ^ Unconfined Compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. as estimated by SPT resistance, field and laboratory tests, and/or visual observation. KEY TO SAMPLERS z Modified California Sampler (3-inch O.D.) y Mid-size Sampler (2.5-inch O.D.) x Standard Penetration Test Sampler (2-inch O.D.) KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS FIGURE A-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 SECONDARY DIVISIONS PRIMARY DIVISIONS DR A F T Attachment 2 Fresh Moderately Severe Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks, slight staining. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.all feldspars dull and discolored and majority show kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist's pick. Rock goes "clunk" when struck. Very Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may Severe show thin clay coatings, crystals in broken face All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock "fabric" clear show bright. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.and evident, but reduced in strength to strong soil. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of Slight strong rock usually left. Rock generally fresh, joints stained, and discoloration extends into rock up to 1 inch. Joints may contain clay. Very Severe In granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar crystals are All rock except quartz discolored and stained. Rock "fabric" dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer.discernible, but mass effectively reduced to "soil" with only fragments of strong rock remaining. Moderate Significant portions of rock show discoloration and Complete weathering effects. In granitoid rocks, most feldspars Rock reduced to "soil". Rock fabric not discernible or discernible are dull and discolored; some are clayey. Rock has dull only in small scattered locations. Quartz may be present as dikes sound under hammer and shows significant loss of or stringers. strength as compared with fresh rock. Very hard Medium Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Hand Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 inch deep by firm pressure on knife specimens requires several hard blows of geologist's.or pick point. Can be excavated in small chips to pieces about 1 inch maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologist's pick. Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty.Soft Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be specimen.excavated in chips to pieces several inches in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be brocken by finger pressure. Moderately Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves Very Soft to 1/4 inch deep can be excavated by hard blow of point Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of of a geologist's pick. Hard specimen can be detached pick. Pieces 1 inch or more in thickness can be broken with finger by moderate blow.pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail. JOINT BEDDING AND FOLIATION SPACING ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATOR (RQD) Spacing Joints Bedding and Foliation RQD, as a percentage Descriptor Less than 2 in.Very Close Very Thin Exceeding 90 Excellent 2 in. to 1 ft.Close Thin 90 to 75 Good 1 ft. to 3 ft.Moderately Close Medium 75 to 50 Fair 3 ft. to 10 ft.Wide Thick 50 to 25 Poor More than 10 ft.Very Wide Very Thick Less than 25 Very Poor KEY TO BEDROCK DESCRIPTIONS FIGURE A-2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 WEATHERING HARDNESS DR A F T Attachment 2 DRILL TYPE: Minuteman with 3-1/4" Continuous Flight Auger LOGGED BY: AS DEPTH TO GROUND WATER: Not Encountered SURFACE ELEVATION: 697'DATE DRILLED: 09/09/19 CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION SO I L C O N S I S T E N C Y / DE N S I T Y o r R O C K HA R D N E S S Q ( F i g u r e A - 2 ) SO I L T Y P E SO I L S Y M B O L DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E I N T E R V A L PE N . R E S I S T A N C E ( B l o w s / f t ) WA T E R C O N T E N T ( % ) SH E A R S T R E N G T H ( T S F ) * UN C O N F I N . C O M P . ( T S F ) * SC 0 z z l 8 z z z BR z 68 7 z y 5 y y 60 13 y y y y 78 8 y 10 15 20 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG EB-1 BORING EB-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 Soft Brown, Clayey Sand, slightly moist, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse grained angular to subangular gravel, low to moderate plasticity fines, roots, rock fragments, possible fill. l 38% Passing No. 200 Sieve. Santa Clara Formation: Reddish brown, Claystone and Sandstone, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, fine to coarse grained angular to subangular gravel, roots, black oxide staining, very severly weathered, friable. Bottom of Boring at 8 feet Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types, the actual transition may be gradual. *Measured using Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer devices. DR A F T Attachment 2 DRILL TYPE: Minuteman with 3-1/4" Continuous Flight Auger LOGGED BY: AS DEPTH TO GROUND WATER: Not Encountered SURFACE ELEVATION: 698'DATE DRILLED: 09/09/19 CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION SO I L C O N S I S T E N C Y / DE N S I T Y o r R O C K HA R D N E S S Q ( F i g u r e A - 2 ) SO I L T Y P E SO I L S Y M B O L DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E I N T E R V A L PE N . R E S I S T A N C E ( B l o w s / f t ) WA T E R C O N T E N T ( % ) SH E A R S T R E N G T H ( T S F ) * UN C O N F I N . C O M P . ( T S F ) * 0 z BR z z 56 12 z y y y 85 12 y x 5 x x 54 15 x x x x 60 16 x 10 15 20 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG EB-2 BORING EB-2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 transition may be gradual. *Measured using Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer devices. Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types, the actual Bottom of Boring at 7.8 feet grained angular to subanguler gravel, roots, black oxide staining, very severely weathered, friable. Road Gravel Santa Clara Formation: Reddish brown, Claystone and Soft Sandstone, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, fine to coarse DR A F T Attachment 2 DRILL TYPE: Minuteman with 3-1/4" Continuous Flight Auger LOGGED BY: AS DEPTH TO GROUND WATER: Not Encountered SURFACE ELEVATION: 699'DATE DRILLED: 09/09/19 CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION SO I L C O N S I S T E N C Y / DE N S I T Y o r R O C K HA R D N E S S Q ( F i g u r e A - 2 ) SO I L T Y P E SO I L S Y M B O L DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E I N T E R V A L PE N . R E S I S T A N C E ( B l o w s / f t ) WA T E R C O N T E N T ( % ) SH E A R S T R E N G T H ( T S F ) * UN C O N F I N . C O M P . ( T S F ) * 0 z BR z z 38 12 z y y y 49 14 y x 5 x x 31 9 x x x s 50 12 x x x x 70 14 10 x 15 20 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG EB-3 BORING EB-3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 transition may be gradual. *Measured using Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer devices. Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types, the actual Bottom of Boring at 10 feet s Free Swell = 40%. grained angular to rounded gravels, roots, black oxide staining, very severeley weathered, friable. Road Gravel Santa Clara Formation: Reddish brown, Claystone and Soft Sandstone, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, fine to coarse DR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS Samples collected during subsurface exploration were selected for tests to help evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the soils and bedrock that was encountered. The tests that were performed are briefly described below. The natural moisture content was determined in accordance with ASTM D2216 on nearly all of the samples recovered from the borings. This test determines the moisture content, representative of field conditions, at the time the samples were collected. The results are presented on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. A free swell test was performed on one sample of the weathered bedrock recovered from Boring EB-3. The result is presented on the log of Boring EB-3 at the appropriate sample depth.      DR A F T Attachment 2 Passing USCS Chart Boring Sample Water Liquid Plasticity Liquidity No. 200 Soil Symbol Number Depth Content Limit Index Index Sieve Classification (feet)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent) EB-X 2-4 PLASTICITY CHART FIGURE B-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE BEATTY PROPERTY HOME OCTOBER 2019 LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-3 DR A F T Attachment 2 ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. 1390 El Camino Real, 2nd Floor San Carlos, California 94070 Phone: (650) 591-5224 www.romigengineers.com DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT D Asbestos and Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. DR A F T Attachment 2 Asbestos & Lead Survey Three Buildings Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District August 20, 2019 Revised November 14, 2019 Terracon Project No. R1197192 Prepared for: ZFA Structural Engineers San Carlos, CA 94070 Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Emeryville, CADR A F T Attachment 2 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 ASBESTOS AND LEAD survey ................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Visual Assessment of Suspect ACM ............................................................................... 3 2.2 Bulk Sampling Suspect ACM .......................................................................................... 3 2.3 Physical Assessment of Suspect ACM ............................................................................ 4 2.4 Sample Analysis of Suspect ACM ................................................................................... 4 2.5 Bulk Sampling of Lead Paint and Suspect Bulk Materials ................................................ 4 3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 5 3.1 Asbestos ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Lead-Containing Paints and Materials ............................................................................. 6 4.0 Regulatory Summary ................................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Asbestos ........................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 Lead ............................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 LIMITATIONS/GENERAL COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 8 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX A IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BY HOMOGENEOUS AREA (HA) APPENDIX B ASBESTOS SAMPLE SUMMARY APPENDIX C ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA APPENDIX D LEAD ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA APPENDIX E LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX G SAMPLE LOCATION DRAWINGSDR A F T Attachment 2 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted a pre-renovation asbestos and lead survey of three buildings, the Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin near La Honda, California. We understand this asbestos survey was requested in support of the planned renovation of the building(s). The purpose of this survey was to sample and identify suspect materials and provide information regarding the identity, location, condition, and approximate quantities of asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead containing paint, mercury containing switches and light fixtures, PCB containing lighting ballasts and ozone depleting coolants. The survey was performed on July 2, 2019 by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors in general accordance with the sampling protocols established in United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 763 Subpart E 763, known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, (AHERA). Terracon collected 89 bulk samples from homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. Terracon collected seventy (70) samples from twenty-two (22) homogeneous area of suspected asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Laboratory analysis reported that seven (7) samples and two (2) materials contain asbestos. Terracon collected two (2) paint chip samples from the La Honda Log cabin, one (1) from the La Honda White Barn, and six (6) from the Beatty House. Analysis of the paint samples reported that all of paint-chip samples had detectable concentrations of lead. One (1) sample from the La Honda White Barn and three (3) samples from the Beatty House had lead concentrations in excess of the California Department of Public Health definition of Lead-Based Paint. DR A F T Attachment 2 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Reliable ■Responsive ■Resourceful ii HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SURVEY ZFA - Three Buildings Pre-Renovation Survey Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Terracon Project No. R1197192 43697 1.0 INTRODUCTION Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) was contracted by ZFA Structural Engineers (ZFA) to conduct a hazardous materials survey of three buildings owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, including the Beatty House near Los Gatos and the La Honda White Barn and La Honda Log Cabin near La Honda, California. The survey was conducted on July 2, 2019 by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors. The survey included the interior and exterior building components. Homogeneous areas of suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-containing paints, PCB containing lighting ballasts, mercury containing thermostats, and mercury containing lighting tubes were visually identified and documented. Although reasonable effort was made to survey accessible suspect materials, additional suspect but un- sampled materials could be located in walls, in voids or in other concealed areas. 1.1 Scope of Work The scope of the survey was as follows: n Inspect the subject buildings for the presence of suspect ACMs, lead-containing paint, mercury-containing products, polychlorinated biphenyl lighting ballasts. n Collect samples of suspect ACMs following a National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) protocol for sample collection for a demolition survey. n Asbestos bulk samples will be analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM) in accordance with the EPA’s July 1993 method for the determination of asbestos in bulk building materials - EPA 600/R-93/116. n Collect bulk paint chip samples of primary painted surfaces and other materials suspected to be lead containing. Bulk samples will be analyzed at an accredited laboratory by Flame Atomic Absorption (AA) for Total Lead reported in parts per million (ppm). n Submit written report including analytical results, regulatory requirements and conclusions. The subject spaces included in the scope of were limited to: n The interior and exterior of the Beatty House, n The interior and exterior of the La Honda Log Cabin, and DR A F T Attachment 2 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 3 n The interior and exterior of the La Honda White Barn. 2.0 ASBESTOS AND LEAD SURVEY The survey was conducted by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors. Mike Harrington is certified by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) as a Site Surveillance Technician (SST # 01-3017). Mike Reed is also certified by Cal/OSHA (SST # 08- 4464). The survey was managed and supervised by Michael Benefield. Mr. Benefield is certified by Cal/OSHA as a Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC # 06-3938). Terracon’s project personnel’s certifications can be found in Appendix E of this report. The survey was conducted in general accordance with the sampling protocols outlined in United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 763 Subpart E 763, known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). Samples were delivered to an accredited laboratory for analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). 2.1 Visual Assessment of Suspect ACM Survey activities were initiated with visual observation of the interior and exterior of the building to identify homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. A homogeneous area (HA) consists of building materials that appear similar throughout in terms of color and texture with consideration given to the date of application. Interior assessment was conducted in visually accessible areas of the building proposed for demolition. Terracon typically investigated for flooring beneath carpeting by lifting small corner sections of carpet. If additional flooring was seen, they have been identified in the report. If flooring was not seen at corners under the carpet, it does not imply that there are no tiles beneath the carpeted floor. Terracon inspected the walls in multiple places throughout the building and did not observe additional coverings/layers except where noted in this report, but there may be areas of additional suspect material present within the building walls not investigated. Terracon did not inspect in concealed wall cavities or in sub grade areas. 2.2 Bulk Sampling Suspect ACM Bulk samples were collected of homogeneous suspect materials that were within the area covered by the scope of work. A homogeneous material is defined as a surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material that is uniform in color, texture and age of construction. Examples of homogeneous materials include: n Pipe insulation produced by the same manufacturer and installed during the same time period; n Resilient flooring of identical color and pattern; DR A F T Attachment 2 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 4 n Troweled on surfacing materials located in contiguous areas. The buildings were visually inspected for the presence of suspect materials. As materials were identified, bulk samples were obtained with the aid of a coring device or other hand tool and placed into individual sampling bags. Each sample was given a discreet identification number and recorded on field notes as well as chain of custody forms. Refer to accompanying tables and appendices for details on material sample locations and results. 2.3 Physical Assessment of Suspect ACM A physical assessment of each homogeneous area (HA) of suspect ACM was conducted to assess the friability and condition of the materials. A friable material is defined by the USEPA as a material which can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry. Friability was assessed by physically touching suspect materials. 2.4 Sample Analysis of Suspect ACM Bulk samples of suspect ACM were analyzed by EM Lab P&K of Phoenix, AZ. EML is accredited under the National Institute of Standards and Technology's National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Analysis was conducted by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) in accordance with EPA 600/R92-116 (1993) method. Asbestos content was determined by visual estimation. The lower quantitation limit of PLM is recognized to be 1%. To reliably determine that a material in which asbestos was detected by PLM, contains less than 1% asbestos the samples must be re-analyzed by PLM Point Count. In accordance with EPA assessment criteria, if a single sample of a homogeneous material tests positive for asbestos, all areas of that homogeneous material are considered to be asbestos-containing. 2.5 Bulk Sampling of Lead Paint and Suspect Bulk Materials Paint chip and bulk samples were collected using a hand scraper or chisel and were placed into individual plastic sampling containers. Each sample was provided a discreet sample number, which was recorded on a chain of custody form. The samples were transported under chain of custody procedures to J3 Resources of Pasadena, TX. Please refer to Table III for details on sample locations and sample results. All paint and ceramic tile glazing samples were analyzed for lead content using the Flame Atomic Absorption spectroscopy in accordance to EPA Method SW846-7420. DR A F T Attachment 2 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 5 3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Asbestos The following asbestos-containing materials were identified as a result of laboratory analysis or assumed to be asbestos containing: HM # / Material Description General Material Location NESHAP Category Asbestos Type Estimated Quantity Tan vinyl sheet flooring Beatty House: Living room Friable – RACM 25% Chrysotile 360 Wallboard joint compound Beatty House: Throughout, walls and ceilings NA 2% Chrysotile in the joint compound, and 0.5% chrysotile composite 3,700 NA = Not Applicable, CH = Chrysotile, lf = linear feet, sf = square feet, RACM = Regulated asbestos containing material (friable), Cat. I = Non- friable (note ACM must be reclassified as a RACM if rendered friable during removal), Cat. II = Category II Non-friable (note ACM must be reclassified as a RACM if rendered friable during removal), sf = square feet, lf = linear feet No asbestos was detected in any of the samples collected in the La Honda Log Cabin or in the La Honda White Barn. No identified materials were unable to be sampled and assumed to contain asbestos in any of the three buildings. Vinyl sheet flooring in the Beatty House Living Room is friable ACM. Friable ACM is Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM) and must be removed prior to start of demolition or renovation activities. The wallboard system in the Beatty House has ACM joint compound. Composite analysis of the joint compound and the wallboard by PLM point count reported that the composite contained less than 1% asbestos. This material is not an ACM as defined by NESHAP and BAAQMD. However, Cal/OSHA does not allow composite analysis, so the joint compound is an ACM as defined by Cal/OSHA. All removal of ACM materials including materials non-friable materials left in the building must be conducted by a licensed and registered asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with 8CCR1529 and the BAAQMD Regulation 11 Rule 2. If additional suspect materials that have not been characterized in this report are discovered during demolition, these materials must be assumed to contain asbestos and be treated accordingly until proven otherwise by appropriate sampling and laboratory analysis. A summary of the classification, condition and approximate quantity of identified ACM is presented in Appendix A. The summary of sample locations is presented in Appendix B. Laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix C. DR A F T Attachment 2 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 6 3.2 Lead-Containing Paints and Materials Nine (9) painted surfaces were sampled and analyzed for potential lead content. Nine (9) of the painted surfaces were found to contain lead content above the laboratory detection limit. Four (4) painted surfaces were found to contain lead in concentrations exceeding 5,000 parts per million. The laboratory results for lead testing are summarized in Table III below. TABLE III LEAD SAMPLE RESULTS Sample Number Material Description and Location Results mg/kg (ppm)Le a d - Co n t a i n i n g Le a d - Ba s e d Pa i n t L-01 La Honda Log Cabin: Green paint on wood floor in the Log Cabin Kitchen 4,200 Y N L-02 La Honda Log Cabin:White paint on glass and wood on the Log Cabin south exterior 780 Y N L-03 La Honda White Barn:48,000 Y Y L-04 Beatty House:Brown paint on wood exterior wall 1,500 Y N L-05 Beatty House:White paint on wood window frame 1,800 Y N L-06 Beatty House: White paint on wallboard wall in the living room 18,000 Y Y L-07 Beatty House: Brown paint on wood door frame between living room and kitchen 12,000 Y Y L-08 Beatty House: White paint on wood door frame in the kitchen 460 Y N L-09 Beatty House: White paint on glass and window frame on the exterior 43,000 Y Y mg/kg= Milligram per kilogram, ppm = parts per million Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1). Disturbance of lead-based paints must be conducted in accordance with the EPA RRP rule. DR A F T Attachment 2 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 7 4.0 REGULATORY SUMMARY 4.1 Asbestos Disturbance of materials containing asbestos is regulated by Cal-OSHA in the Asbestos in Construction Industry Standard, 8 CCR 1529. Some of the key requirements are summarized below. n Any individual who contracts to provide health and safety services relating to materials containing more than 0.1% asbestos must be certified by Cal-OSHA as either a Certified Asbestos Consultant or a Site Surveillance Technician. The activities that require certification include: conducting asbestos surveys; writing work plans or specifications for abatement; monitoring the work of abatement contractors; collecting air samples; and determining if the work area is safe for re- occupancy by non-asbestos workers. Regulation: Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (q)(1). n If more than 100 square feet of materials that contain greater than 0.1% asbestos will be disturbed, the materials must be removed by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor. Regulation: Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (r). n ACMs that are classified by OSHA as thermal system insulation/surfacing materials are present. Removal of these materials is considered a Class I activity according to Cal-OSHA regulations. Work practices and engineering controls for Class I work are specified in Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (g) (4-6). n ACMs that are classified by OSHA as other/miscellaneous materials are present. Removal of these materials is considered a Class II activity according to Cal-OSHA regulations. Work practices and engineering controls for Class II work are specified in Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (g) (7-8). n Removal of friable ACMs greater than 100 square feet or 100 linear feet requires notification of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ten (10) working days in advance of intended removal. n Friable ACM waste must be manifested, transported, and disposed of as hazardous waste in accordance with the Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) and under a Waste Shipment Record as required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. DTSC regulates disposal of asbestos waste. DTSC issues U.S. EPA hazardous waste generator identification numbers. 4.2 Lead Disturbing materials containing any detectable concentration of lead either through repair, maintenance, renovation or demolition activities triggers several regulations enforced by such agencies as OSHA (worker protection), EPA (environmental exposure, transportation and DR A F T Attachment 2 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 8 disposal), and Department of Public Health (DPH). Some of the key requirements of the regulations are summarized below. n There are presently no federal, state or local regulations limiting the concentration of lead in public sector buildings, however several regulations established for the private sector as well as for government subsidized housing are used industry wide as guidelines for assessing exposure to lead. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has set a maximum limit of 90 ppm in paint used for residential purposes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires abatement of lead hazards involving paint in concentrations exceeding 5,000 ppm. n Disposal of all lead-containing materials is regulated at concentrations at or exceeding 1,000 ppm as stated in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 263 - Land Disposal Regulations and Title 22, Division 4 Environmental Health of the California Administrative Code. Lead containing materials that exceed 50 ppm must be additionally analyzed to determine possible waste disposal restrictions with respect to lead. n Federal OSHA and Cal-OSHA regulate all worker exposure during construction activities that impact lead-containing paint. Cal-OSHA enforces the Lead in Construction Standard in Title 8 CCR 1532.1. The scope covers construction work where employees may be exposed to lead during such activities as demolition, removal, surface preparation for re-painting, renovation, clean-up and routine maintenance. The OSHA specified method of compliance includes respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, housekeeping, hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, and training, among other requirements. 5.0 LIMITATIONS/GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon did not perform sampling which required demolition or destructive activities such as knocking holes in walls, dismantling of equipment or removal of protective coverings. Reasonable efforts to access suspect materials within known areas of restricted access (e.g., crawl spaces) were made; however, confined spaces or areas which may pose a health or safety risk to Terracon personnel were not sampled. Sampling did not include suspect materials which could not be safely reached with available ladders/man-lifts. DR A F T Attachment 2 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 9 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the survey results, Terracon concludes the following: n Asbestos was detected in various materials including vinyl floor tile and mastics, joint compound associated with drywall, thermal system insulation, ceramic tile mastic, sink undercoating, roof mastics, transite (asbestos cement) panels, metal roof cap sealant, and flashing sealant. n If additional suspect materials that have not been characterized as ACM or non- ACM in this report are discovered during demolition, these materials should be assumed to contain asbestos and be treated accordingly until proven otherwise by appropriate sampling and laboratory analysis. n Lead was detected above the laboratory detection limit on nine (9) various painted surfaces throughout the building. Two (2) of the painted surfaces had lead concentrations above 5,000 ppm, the threshold for designation of lead-based paint. This asbestos survey was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locale. The results, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are based on conditions observed during our survey of the building. The information contained in this report is relevant to the date on which this survey was performed and should not be relied upon to represent conditions at a later date. This report has been prepared on behalf of and exclusively for use by ZFA Structural Engineers for specific application to their project as discussed. This report is not a bidding document. Contractors or consultants reviewing this report must draw their own conclusions regarding further investigation or remediation deemed necessary. Terracon does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies, laboratories or other third parties supplying information which may have been used in the preparation of this report. No warranty, express or implied is made.DR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX A ZFA Structural Engineers - Three Buildings Pre-Renovation Survey Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin, Near IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BY HOMOGENEOUS AREA (HA) HA No.Material Description Material Location NESHAP Classification % and Type Asbestos** Estimated Quantity* 201 Tan vinyl sheet flooring Beatty House: Living room Friable – RACM 25% Chrysotile 360 SF 204 Wallboard joint compound Beatty House: Throughout, walls and ceilings NA 2% Chrysotile in the joint compound, and 0.5% Chrysotile composite 3,700 SF *Estimated quantities are based on a cursory field evaluation, and actual quantities may vary significantly, especially if asbestos containing materials are present in hidden and/or inaccessible areas not evaluated as part of this survey. **%& Type Asbestos = this column contains both the analytical result of the sample with the highest concentration of asbestos detected in the samples that make up the HA and the types of asbestos identified. The materials listed in this table have been sampled and determined to contain asbestos in concentrations greater than 1%. When disturbed, various federal, state and local regulations may apply. These materials should be monitored for damage over time and repaired as necessary by appropriately trained personnel. Removal may be necessary before renovations and in most cases before a demolition. See Appendix B for a summary of samples collected. See Appendix C for detailed analytical results.DR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX B ASBESTOS SAMPLE LOCATION SUMMARY DR A F T Attachment 2 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity Log Cabin 1 1A Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected NA NA 1 1A Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 1 1B Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected 1 1B Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 1 1C Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected 1 1C Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 2 2A Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 2 2A Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Light Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Dark Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Orange Wood None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Light Brown Mastic None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Dark Brown Mastic None detected 3 3A Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected NA NA 3 3B Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected 3 3C Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected 4 4A Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected NA NA 4 4B Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected 4 4C Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected 5 5A Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected NA NA 5 5A Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 5 5B Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected 5 5B Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 5 5C Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected 5 5C Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 6 6A Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected NA NA 6 6A Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 6 6B Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected 6 6B Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 6 6C Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected 6 6C Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 7 7A Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected NA NA 7 7B Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected 7 7C Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected 8 8A Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected NA NA 8 8A Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected 8 8B Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected 8 8B Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected 8 8C Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected 8 8C Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 1 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 2 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 9 9A Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9A Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected 9 9B Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9B Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected 9 9C Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9C Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected Barn 100 100A Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;N Black Wiring Insulation None detected NA NA 100 100B Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Black Wiring Insulation None detected 100 100B Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Black Tar Insulator None detected 100 100C Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;S Black Wiring Insulation None detected Beatty House 200 200A Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected NA NA 200 200B Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected 200 200C Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Friable Class 2 360 SF 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected RACM 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 203 203A Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 203 203B Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 203 203C Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 2 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 2 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 204 204A Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall Gray Fibrous Material with Multilayered Paint None detected NA Class 2 3,700 SF 204 204A Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall White Drywall with Brown Paper and Multilayered Paint None detected 204 204B Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint None detected 204 204B Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Brown Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204C Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint None detected 204 204C Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Brown Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Tan Joint Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Brown/Green Paper None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Cream Tape None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Cream Tape None detected 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Cream Tape None detected 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Composite by PLM Point Count 0.5% Chrysotile 205 205A Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; West Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected NA NA 205 205B Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; Center Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected 205 205C Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; East Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected 206 206A Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; West Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected NA NA 206 206B Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; Center Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected 206 206C Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; East Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected 207 207A Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 207 207B Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 207 207C Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West White Mastic None detected 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Brown Fiberboard Flooring None detected 208 208B Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208B Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center White Mastic with Brown Fibrous Material None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East White Mastic None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Brown Fiberboard Flooring None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 3 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 2 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Tan Flooring None detected NA NA 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Tan Flooring None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Tan Flooring None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected NA NA 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Felt None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Felt None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Felt None detected 211 211A Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected NA NA 211 211B Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected 211 211C Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 4 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX C ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA DR A F T Attachment 2 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding:Project: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin EML ID: 2198987 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-08-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 1 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:27 Total Samples Analyzed:27 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:0 Location: 1A, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447612-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 1B, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447613-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 1C, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447614-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 2A, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447615-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Brown Mastic ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 2 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 2B, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447616-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Light Brown Mastic ND Dark Brown Mastic ND Orange Wood ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 2C, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447617-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Light Brown Mastic ND Dark Brown Mastic ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 3A, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447618-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 3B, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447619-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 3 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 3C, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447620-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4A, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447621-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4B, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447622-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4C, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447623-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 4 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 5A, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447624-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 5B, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447625-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 5C, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447626-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 6A, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447627-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 5 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 6B, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447628-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 6C, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447629-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 7A, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447630-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 7B, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447631-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 6 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 7C, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447632-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 8A, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447633-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 8B, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447634-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 8C, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447635-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 7 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 9A, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447636-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 9B, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447637-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 9C, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447638-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 8 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding:Project: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn EML ID: 2198983 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. REVISED REPORT Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-09-2019 and 07-10-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 1 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-10-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:3 Total Samples Analyzed:3 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:0 Location: 100A, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;N Lab ID-Version‡: 10447309-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 100B, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Lab ID-Version‡: 10447310-2 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Black Tar Insulator ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 100C, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;S Lab ID-Version‡: 10447311-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 2 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-10-2019 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". Location: 100B; Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Lab ID-Version‡: 10447310-2 Analysis Time revised. Sample Layers revised. EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 3 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding:Project: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd EML ID: 2198988 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-08-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 1 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:40 Total Samples Analyzed:40 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:7 Location: 200A, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447674-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 200B, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447675-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 200C, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447676-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 201A, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447677-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 2 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 201B, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447678-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 201C, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447679-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 202A, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447680-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 3 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 202B, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447681-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 4 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 202C, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447682-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 203A, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447683-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 203B, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447684-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 203C, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447685-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 5 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 204A, Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall Lab ID-Version‡: 10447686-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Fibrous Material with Multilayered Paint ND White Drywall with Brown Paper and Multilayered Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 10% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204B, Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447687-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint ND Brown Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204C, Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447688-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint ND Brown Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204D, Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447689-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Joint Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 10% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Comments:Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 6 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 204E, Wallboard Joint Compound; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447690-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Green Paper ND Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. Location: 204F, Wallboard Joint Compound; South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447691-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. Location: 204G, Wallboard Joint Compound; North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447692-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 7 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 205A, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447693-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 8 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 205B, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447694-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 205C, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447695-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 206A, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447696-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 206B, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447697-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 9 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 206C, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447698-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 207A, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447699-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 207B, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447700-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 207C, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447701-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 10 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 208A, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447702-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic ND Brown Fiberboard Flooring ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 208B, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447703-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic with Brown Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 208C, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447704-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic ND Brown Fiberboard Flooring ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 209A, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447705-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 11 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 209B, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447706-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 209C, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447707-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 210A, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Lab ID-Version‡: 10447708-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose 10% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 210B, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Lab ID-Version‡: 10447709-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose 10% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 12 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 210C, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447710-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 12% Glass Fibers 10% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 211A, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447711-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 211B, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447712-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 211C, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447713-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 13 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX D LEAD ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA DR A F T Attachment 2 Analysis Report Client: Project/Test Address: Eurofins EMLab P&K 7469 Whitepine Rd Telephone: 800.347.4010 Richmond, VA 23237 Environmental Hazards Services, L.L.C. 2199222 Client Number: 201676 Fax Number: 330-497-0772Laboratory Results Analyzed Date: Client Sample Number Lab Sample Number Pb (ug/g) ppm Lead Paint Chip 07/10/2019 07/09/2019 19-07-01313 Reported Date: Received Date: Report Number: 4101 Shuffel Street NW North Canton, OH 44720 Narrative ID 07/10/2019 Collection Location % Pb by Wt. Collection Date: L-119-07-01313-001 4200 0.42 L-219-07-01313-002 780 0.078 Tariq Mohammed QC Clerk Analysis Method:EPA SW846 7000B The HUD lead guidelines for lead paint chips are 0.50% by Weight, 5000 ppm, or 1.0 mg/cm². The Reporting Limit (RL) for samples prepared by ASTM E-1979-17 is 10.0 ug Total Pb. The RL for samples prepared by EPA SW846 3050B is 25.0 ug Total Pb. Paint chip area and results are calculated based on area measurements determined by the client. All internal quality control requirements associated with this batch were met, unless otherwise noted. LEGEND Pb= lead ug = microgram ppm = parts per million ug/g = micrograms per gram Wt. = weight Reviewed By Authorized Signatory: OH 10028Accreditation #: Preparation Method:ASTM E-1979-17 The condition of the samples analyzed was acceptable upon receipt per laboratory protocol unless otherwise noted on this report. Results represent the analysis of samples submitted by the client. Sample location, description, area, etc., was provided by the client. Results reported above in mg/cm3 are calculated based on area supplied by client. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written consent of the Environmental Hazards Service, L.L.C. ELLAP Accredtitation through AIHA-LAP, LLC (100420), NY ELAP #11714. Page 1of1 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 JP191014468 3042679 8-Jul-2019 10-Jul-2019 10-Jul-2019 J3 Resources, Inc. 3113 Red Bluff Road Pasadena, Texas 77503 Phone: (713) 290-0223 – Fax: (832) 831-5669 j3resources.com Lead in Paint Performed by Flame AA – USEPA SW846 7420/3050B Project #:EMLab P&K J3 Order #: 48000 1501 W Knudsen Dr Phoenix, AZ 85027 Report Date: L-3 LEAD CONCENTRATION (%) Receipt Date: Analysis Date: Paint Chip 4.8% LEAD CONCENTRATION (mg/kg) Scott Ward, Ph.D. Lab Director Reporting Limit = 50.0 mg/kg N/A = Not Applicable Analyst:Korry Huddleston 2199099 This report relates only to the samples submitted. The analysis has been conducted according to the method(s) listed above. Blank corrections are not applied to data unless requested by the customer. This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed customer and shall not be reproduced except in full without written approval by J3 Resources, Inc. (J3). Unless otherwise noted, all quality control samples performed within specifications established by the laboratory. INS = Insufficient Sample Weight NS = Not Submitted Angela Hetherington SAMPLE ID PAINT COLOR Page 1 of 1 DR A F T Attachment 2 3042679 Per S.D./n.t. DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 Approved by: Operations Manager Joshua Cox Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding:Project: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd EML ID: 2199075 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. Due to the nature of the analyses performed, field blank correction of results is not applied. The results relate only to the samples as received. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Lead Analysis (sub-contracted): 07-09-2019 DR A F T Attachment 2 JP191014467 3042648 8-Jul-2019 9-Jul-2019 9-Jul-2019 This report relates only to the samples submitted. The analysis has been conducted according to the method(s) listed above. Blank corrections are not applied to data unless requested by the customer. This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed customer and shall not be reproduced except in full without written approval by J3 Resources, Inc. (J3). Unless otherwise noted, all quality control samples performed within specifications established by the laboratory. INS = Insufficient Sample Weight NS = Not Submitted Angela Hetherington SAMPLE ID PAINT COLOR 2199075 12000 1.2% 18000 1800 0.18% 1.8% L-5 Paint Chip L-6 Paint Chip L-7 Paint Chip L-8 Paint Chip L-9 Paint Chip 43000 4.3% 0.046%460 Scott Ward, Ph.D. Lab Director Reporting Limit = 50.0 mg/kg N/A = Not Applicable Analyst:Korry Huddleston 1500 1501 W Knudsen Dr Phoenix, AZ 85027 Report Date: L-4 LEAD CONCENTRATION (%) Receipt Date: Analysis Date: Paint Chip 0.15% LEAD CONCENTRATION (mg/kg) J3 Resources, Inc. 3113 Red Bluff Road Pasadena, Texas 77503 Phone: (713) 290-0223 – Fax: (832) 831-5669 j3resources.com Lead in Paint Performed by Flame AA – USEPA SW846 7420/3050B Project #:EMLab P&K J3 Order #: Page 1 of 1 DR A F T Attachment 2 3042648 Per D.H./n.t. DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX E LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 IN D I V I D U A L : C E R T I F I C A T E T Y P E : NU M B E R : EX P I R A T I O N D A T E : Le a d S a m p l i n g T e c h n i c i a n LR C - 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 5/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 0 Mi c h e a l R e e d ST A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DE P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C H E A L T H LE A D - R E L A T E D C O N S T R U C T I O N C E R T I F I C A T E Di s c l a i m e r : T h i s d o c u m e n t a l o n e s h o u l d n o t b e r e l i e d u p o n t o c o n f i r m c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a t u s . C o m p a r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s p h o t o a n d n a m e t o a n o t h e r v a l i d f o r m o f go v e r n m e n t i s s u e d p h o t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . V e r i f y t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a t u s b y s e a r c h i n g f o r L e a d - R e l a t e d C o n s t r u c t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l s a t ww w . c d p h . c a . g o v / p r o g r a m s / c l p p b o r c a l l i n g ( 8 0 0 ) 5 9 7 - L E A D . DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 DR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 1 La Honda Log Cabin Photo 2 La Honda White Barn DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 3 Beatty House Photo 4 Material 204 - ACM joint Compound on wallboard walls and ceilings in the Beatty House DR A F T Attachment 2 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 5 Material 201 ACM vinyl sheet flooring in the Beatty House DR A F T Attachment 2 APPENDIX G SAMPLE LOCATION DRAWINGS DR A F T Attachment 2 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:2 Beatty House La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 N 209B 209A 209C 204D 203A 203B 205C 203C 206A 208B 206B 204G 208C 206C 200A 205B 204A 205A 200C L-5 202A 202B 202C 204C 204E 204B 207A 207B 207C 210A, 210B, 210C L-6 201B 211A, 211B, 211C 201C L-7 208A L-8 201A 200B L-9 L-4DR A F T Attachment 2 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:2 Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 N BATH FIREPLACE KITCHEN 8C 6B 9C 3C 6C 7A, 7B, 7C 8A 3A L-2 4A 1A 1B 1C 4B 4C 2B 5A, 5B, 5C 2C 2A L-1 9A 9B 6A 8B 3B LIVING ROOM DR A F T Attachment 2 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:3 White Barn Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 Sample L-3 white paint on wood siding collected from exterior of barn Samples 100A, 100B, and 100C Black 1/8” wiring collected from interior of barnDR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT E Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 1 of 29 Swaim Biological, Incorporated 4435 First Street PMB #312 Livermore, CA 94551 TO Matthew Chaney, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, Ca 94022 FROM Karen Swaim and Ryan Byrnes, Swaim Biological Incorporated 4435 First Street Livermore, CA 94551 DATE June 30, 2019 SUBJECT La Honda Creek Preserve, Sierra Azul Preserve, Purisima Uplands and Rancho San Antonio Preserve – Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Per Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) request, Swaim Biological Incorporated (SBI) has conducted habitat and occupancy surveys for special status mammal species at the La Honda Creek Preserve, Sierra Azul Preserve, Purisima Uplands (Guisti Property) and Rancho San Antonio Preserve in June 2019. Surveys evaluated structures and the surrounding areas in preparation for structure stabilization and demolition projects. SBI’s qualified biologists surveyed for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) and roosting bats at nine (9) structures, twelve (12) storage tanks and multiple debris piles at six (6) separate locations. This report details the methods and provides a summary of our survey results and recommendations. A follow-up bat emergence survey was conducted at the Sierra Azul Preserve - Beatty Property by District Biologist Matthew Chaney on July 30, 2019. 2. METHODS Special Status Bat Surveys Surveys for bats are difficult to standardize because of the large amount of variability that exists at individual survey sites and among survey sites in a project area, much less across the range of a species. Nevertheless, several practices were used to survey for bats, including; bat habitat assessments, daytime maternity roost and signs of bats use surveys (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining), emergence surveys, and acoustic surveys. SBI biologists conducted a daytime bat survey at each location to determine if the structures, storage tanks, and associated debris piles are currently in use by bats. During the surveys, the biologists inspected habitat DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 2 of 29 features on the exterior of each structure and searched for bats or signs of bat occupancy including maternity roosts, day roosting bats, guano pellets and urine staining. Coordinates and photographs were taken of each roost identified. The bat emergence and acoustic surveys began one-half hour before sunset and continued until at least one hour after sunset or until it was otherwise too dark to see emerging bats. Surveyors positioned themselves so that emerging bats would be silhouetted against the sky as they exited the roost. Surveyors were close enough to the roost to observe all exiting bats, but not close enough to influence emergence. Acoustic detectors were deployed in conjunction with emergence survey efforts to monitor bat activity within the proposed project area. Bat vocalization calls were recorded with SonoBatLIVE (using the Petterson M500 USB mic), Anabat Swift, and Pettersson D500 (bat acoustical detectors). Bat vocalization files were analyzed and vetted through SonoBat 4.4 using the SonoVet utility (bat call analysis software) by qualified biologists. In locations where suitable bat habitat was observed but no bats or signs of bats were observed, absence is not presumed. Bats may switch roosts on a nightly basis and the surveys conducted are not interpreted as presence/absence surveys. Bat occupancy was determined as a potential maternity colony whenever an aggregate of bats were observed roosting or emerging at a specific structure. Classification as a maternity colony is a conservative/cautious estimate for aggregates of bats and is therefore not discriminating between non- reproductive male or female roosts. A single bat could be a "maternity colony" (i.e. One adult bat with a pup) and even small maternity roosts could represent a large portion of the local bat population and are therefore "significant". Bats (including females with pups) may switch roosts on a nightly basis and therefore might use suitable habitat, if present, though not observed during the surveys. Therefore, we classified and reported aggregates of bats observed as maternity colonies during the summer/maternity season. San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat Surveys SBI qualified biologists also conducted detailed surveys for woodrats by searching the interior and exterior of all structures, storage tanks (exterior only), and associated debris piles for signs of woodrat occupancy (nests and droppings) within 50-foot of the project area. SBI flagged and photographed any nests that were encountered. Coordinates of each nest was recorded along with a description of the nest. 3. SURVEY RESULTS Survey results for each survey location are provided below. Site specific recommendations are provided at the end of each location section. Descriptions of recommendations for all sites are compiled at the end of the report. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 3 of 29 3.1 LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE – WHITE BARN (DYER BARN) SUMMARY The survey for White Barn on Allen Road, Woodside, California was conducted on June 17, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at the barn and surrounding area evaluating potential bat roosts and woodrat nest structures (Photo 1-2). Three roosting bats were detected during the daytime survey. No dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures although signs of rodent activity were observed throughout the barn. STRUCTURE The barn surveyed receives partial shade from the riparian corridor to the west (Photo 3). Surrounding the barn is signs of wetland / wet meadow as demonstrated by the presence of (giant plantago (Plantago major), sedges (Scirpus spp.), elderberry (Sambucus nigra spp. Caerulea.), and willows (Salix sp). A concrete drainage adjacent to the east side of the barn appears to drain overland flow into the adjacent drainage (Photo 4). The barn itself is in a flat that leads to a downstream ravine and riparian corridor. The interior of the barn (Photo 5 and 6) is comprised of one area subdivided into sections by feeding stalls, an interior enclosed chicken coop, and an open space area. The barn has a pitched roof with corrugated metal sheets held up in regular intervals by rafters (Photo 7). RESULTS The entire structure is accessible to bats and rodents through the gaps between the floor, roof and the walls of the barn. The gaps as well as multiple missing wood slats allow bats to easily enter the building and roost. These conditions provide suitable bat roosting habitat within the structure including the crevice habitat between the rafters and the corrugated roof. Moderately suitable maternity roost habitat is found adjacent to the structure in the form of bat tree roost habitat, no other structures or outbuildings were observed in the immediate area to provide additional maternity roost habitat. Suitable bat foraging habitat is found throughout the White Barn survey area. Bat guano was observed in the interior of the structure on the floor along the north wall (Photo 8). Three Myotis sp. (Photo 9 and 10) were observed day roosting in these rafters on the north side of the barn. Abundant insect activity was observed in the adjacent riparian area providing suitable bat foraging habitat. Rodent sign is present throughout the structure with multiple large grass nests (Photo 11) and a significant number of rodent droppings observed (Photo 12). While the biologists were within the chicken coop, they heard a rodent scurrying directly overhead. No woodrat nests were observed on the premises or within the 50-foot buffer. There was a woodrat squeaking repeatedly in the nearby riparian corridor although no middens were observed where the noise was coming from. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 4 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Suitable bat roost habitat is present within the structure and moderately suitable maternity roost habitat is found adjacent to the structure in the form of bat tree roost habitat. Based on the observed presence of at least three bats roosting within the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. No signs of woodrats were present in the structure or surrounding natural habitat. While no woodrat nests were observed, the riparian habitat near the structure provides suitable habitat and absence of woodrats should not be assumed. Recommendations for the White Barn include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  The need for replacement habitat due to impacts on the maternity roost per District guidelines is dependent upon whether the planned stabilization activities will eliminate roosting habitat. Determination of the need for replacement habitat plan should coincide with the development of the deterrent plan. Photo 1. White Barn exterior. Photo 2. White Barn exterior. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 5 of 29 Photo 3. White Barn exterior missing wooden slats and entry points for bats. Photo 4. Concrete drainage to the east of White Barn that feeds into the riparian corridor. Photo 5. Interior of White Barn. Photo 6. Interior of White Barn. Photo 7. Corrugated roof slats and rafters provide suitable bat roosting habitat. Photo 8. Bat guano present on the floor. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 6 of 29 Photo 9. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in rafters. Photo 10. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in rafters. Photo 11. Rodent nests observed within the barn. These grass nests are most likely deer mouse (Peromyscus sp.) nests. Photo 12. Rodent droppings and destroyed food caches observed within the barn. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 7 of 29 3.2 LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE – REDWOOD CABIN SUMMARY An external survey for Redwood Cabin on Skyline Boulevard, Redwood City, California was conducted on June 17, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 26, 2019 by biologists Rachael Burnham and Leslie Rivas. No signs of roosting bats were detected during the internal and external survey of existing structures within. Four dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside the structure. No bats were observed emerging from the Redwood Cabin during the emergence survey. Acoustic recordings identified fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) foraging calls in the vicinity. STRUCTURE The Redwood Cabin is a one-story structure situated in a redwood forest and is well shaded with only dappled light coming through to the cabin and forest floor (Photo 13 and 14). The log cabin has several rooms, including a kitchen and two bathrooms. On the east side, the deck and portion of the house are supported off the ground by pillars and other support structure. RESULTS There are several possible entryways that bats and woodrats could enter the house: open/broken window, chimney, and crevices in the floor and roof. The ample space underneath the house had numerous crevices that could be used by roosting bats. There were also many cracks and crevices that could provide bat roosting habitat under the eaves, between the logs, and inside the cabin. However, no roosting bats nor signs of bats (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining) were observed during the survey. In general, moderately to highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat surrounds the Redwood Cabin and nearby riparian area. Bat tree roost crevice and cavity roost habitat can be found through the Redwood Cabin work area. Signs of woodrats were present throughout the cabin including a large number of fecal pellets in all rooms of the cabin. One woodrat nest structure was built into a cabinet in the kitchen (Photo 15), twigs around and behind the oven, twigs on ceiling beams in between rooms (Photo 16), and two nest structures built on top of sinks in two rooms (possibly connected behind the wall) (Photo 17 – 18). EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence survey at the Redwood Cabin was conducted one hour before sunset and continued until one-half hour after sunset. No bats were observed emerging from the structure. The acoustic recording device set up in front of the cabin identified one species of bats: fringed myotis. During the emergence survey, no bats were detected emerging from the cabin. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 8 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The cabin provides suitable bat roost habitat outside and within the cabin with multiple entry points. Moderately to highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat surrounds the Redwood Cabin and nearby riparian area. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside the cabin during day surveys and no bats were observed emerging during night surveys, a single bat (fringed myotis) was detected with acoustics within proximity of the cabin. Therefore, there is still potential of bat roosting given the available habitat outside and within the cabin. However, this structure receives little light throughout the day and the building is unlikely to warm up sufficiently enough to support a bat maternity roost. Signs of woodrats were present throughout the structure, however no natural nests were observed outside of the structure. The riparian habitat near the structure provides moderately to highly suitable habitat and may become occupied by woodrats prior to project work. Recommendations for the Redwood Cabin include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 13. North side of Redwood cabin. Photo 14. Redwood cabin. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 9 of 29 Photo 15. Woodrat nest built into kitchen cabinet of redwood cabin. Photo 16. Woodrat nest on ceiling beams of redwood cabin. Photo 17. Woodrat nest on sink in Room A of redwood cabin. Photo 18. Woodrat nest on sink in a Room B of redwood cabin. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 10 of 29 3.3 SIERRA AZUL PRESERVE‐ MEYER PROPERTY SUMMARY An external survey for Meyer Property on Mount Umunhum Road, San Jose, California was conducted on June 11, 2019 by biologists Ben Dudek and Joie de Leon. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 25, 2019 by biologists Elizabeth Armistead, Ben Dudek, Kathleen Grady, and Leslie Rivas. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at all three structures (labeled A, B, and C) for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures, and a nighttime bat emergence survey. No roosting bats nor signs of bats (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining) were observed inside any of the three structures. One Myotis Sp. (Photo 27) was observed in a crevice in a nearby shed on June 11th but not on June 25th. Two dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed in oak trees Structure A. Two bats were observed emerging from two exit points during the emergence survey from Structure B. Acoustic recordings identified two species of bats foraging within the vicinity: California myotis (Myotis californicus) and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). STRUCTURES Structure A is a two-level house that is set to be demolished (Photo 19 and 20). Structure A is well shaded on the north and west sides of the house by oak trees and is unshaded on the east and south sides of the house. Structure B is the one-level studio apartment that will not be demolished (Photo 25). The structure is mostly unshaded with a flat-topped roof. There is a garage with an open-air shed space attached. Structure C is a shed that will also remain and not be demolished (Photo 26). In general, moderately – highly suitable bat maternity habitat is found adjacent to the structures listed above and within the structures scheduled to remain. Figure 1. Meyer Property Structures DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 11 of 29 RESULTS Structure A: The ceiling of Structure A is accessible to bats through a few entry points under the roof eves and the interior is accessible through the chimney (Photo 21). The interior of the house is comprised of a lower level with six sections (kitchen, dining room, laundry room, living room, bedroom, bathroom, and a crawl space) and an upper level with two sections (hallway and bedroom). No visible sign of bat occupancy was observed inside the house. Some nearby oaks had hollows that could provide moderately to highly suitable bat maternity habitat, including a tree with full sun exposure with 20% exfoliating bark. Two woodrat nests were located approximately 25-feet from Structure A in the hollowed-out trunks of two large coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) (Photo 22). A black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) nest was observed under the eve of Structure A. Structure B: A seam running under the roof eaves of Structure B was observed that could provide suitable bat roosting habitat although no roosting bats or signs of roosting bats were observed (Photo 23). Inside Structure B large quantities of woodrat fecal pellets were observed scattered throughout the shed. Structure C: The open structure has suitable bat maternity and night roosting habitat within (Photo 24). A potential woodrat midden is located outside of the shed on an upper shelf (Photo 25). Shed: There is a shed to the west of the structures that were to be surveyed where a day roosting Myotis sp. was observed on June 11 (Photo 26). No roosting bats were observed on June 25. EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence surveys at Structure A and B were conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one and a half hours after sunset. No bats were observed emerging from Structure A. However, bats were observed foraging in the oaks about 25-feet north of Structure A. At Structure B, the biologists observed two bats emerge from two points (Table 1) and fly west towards the coast live oak trees. Acoustic surveys positioned over the open space south of Structure B confirmed the presence of California myotis and big brown bat foraging in the vicinity. Table 1. Bat Emergence Results at Sierra Azul – Meyer Property (Structure B) Time No. of Bats Emerging Location Latitude Longitude 2048 1 Structure B - northwest 37° 10' 2.46" N 121° 52' 9.22" W 2053 1 Structure B - southwest 37° 10' 2.24" N 121° 52' 8.87" W Table 2. Woodrat nest locations – Meyer Property Location Latitude Longitude Flagging Color Oak tree near Structure A 37.1670993 -121.8695911 Pink Oak tree near Structure A 37.1670114 -121.8696032 Pink Structure C 37.1670462 -121.8690466 Not flagged DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 12 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since these some structures are scheduled for removal and others only stabilization (as described above), we present recommendations for each specific structure. All structures are potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat. Bats were observed foraging in the in the oaks near these structures which serve as moderately to highly suitable maternity roost habitat nearby. Structure A: The structure provides potential bat entry points to the structure through ventilation holes in the roof eaves and the chimney. The structure provides suitable roosting habitat under the roof eaves and within the structure if access was obtained through any of the current entry points. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside of the structure during day surveys and no bats were observed emerging from the structure during night surveys, absence cannot be assumed. Two natural woodrat nests were observed outside of the structure in two large coast live oaks although they are likely outside of the disturbance area for demolition activities. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure A include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to demolition activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure demolition activities.  General woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Structure B: The roof eaves of the structure provide suitable bat roosting habitat. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside of the structure during day surveys, two bats were observed emerging from the structure during the night survey. Based on the observed presence of more than one bat emerging from the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat sign was observed within the structure although no natural nests were observed. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure B include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2.  Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW. This replacement habitat will serve as replacement habitat for any habitat removed or disturbed within all structures at the Meyer Property. No additional replacement habitat is recommended unless required by CDFW. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 13 of 29 Structure C: While no bats or signs were observed within the shed during day surveys, though potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat is present. Signs of woodrats were present in the structure, however no natural nests were observed outside in the vicinity. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure C include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Develop a bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 19. Structure A is partially shaded by oak trees. Photo 20. Structure A Photo 21. Ventilation holes under the eve of Structure A. Photo 22. Woodrat middens in hollows of oak trees west of Structure A. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 14 of 29 Photo 23. Structure B – north-side view. Photo 24. Structure C – shed west of Structure A. Photo 25. Possible woodrat midden on shelf in Structure C. Photo 26. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in crevice in nearby shed to the west of the structure to be removed. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 15 of 29 3.4 SIERRA AZUL PRESERVE – BEATTY PROPERTY SUMMARY An external survey for Beatty Property off Alma Bridge Road, Los Gatos, California was conducted on June 19, 2019 by Hailey Pexton and Ben Dudek. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 28, 2019 by biologists Elizabeth Armistead, Rachael Burnham, and Leslie Rivas. The biologists conducted a daytime survey for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures and a night emergence survey. No bats were observed on the June 19 survey. On June 28 six roosting Myotis sp. bats were detected during the daytime survey and eight bats were observed emerging from four exit points during the emergence survey. On July 30, District staff completed follow up emergence surveys and observed 11 bats emerging from the structure. Habitat surrounding the structure is highly suitable for maternity bat roost and foraging habitat. Three dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed within 50 feet of the existing structure with large amounts of woodrat sign (e.g., fecal pellets) observed throughout the entire house. STRUCTURE The structure is a one-story house with crawl space and is situated in oak woodland with nearby grassland and Lexington Reservoir within 500 feet of the property (Photo 27). There was a total of nine rooms in the house, including a kitchen, laundry room, and bathroom. The house is shaded on the north, east, and south sides and has full sun exposure on the west side. RESULTS Biologists fully surveyed around the exterior of the house and found multiple potential bat and woodrat entry and exit points on all sides of the house (Photo 27 and 28). Several large oaks surrounding the structure could support roosting bat habitat; two snags on the west side with 5 – 10% exfoliating bark with full sun exposure, one snag of the east side with 5% exfoliating bark with full sun exposure (Photo 29). The house is in disrepair with many decaying eaves around the roofline that bats could be obtaining access through. There is space between many of the boarded-up windows and doors, and some wooden slats of the house are broken that could also provide bat entry points (Photos 30 – 35). There are various holes and broken wooden slats along the bottom of the house that could provide bat or woodrat entry. There are large amounts of bat signs (e.g., urine staining and guano) on the walls of the interior of the house and all rooms showed signs of bat use (Photo 36). Six bats (Myotis sp.) were observed in various places throughout the house. Upon entry to the house, large amounts of woodrat sign (e.g., fecal pellets) were observed throughout the entire house (Photo 37 and 38). Lots of debris on the floor of the house and two stick piles observed, one on top of the stove in the kitchen and one on top of the sink in the bathroom (Photos 37 - 42). No substantial woodrat nests were observed inside the structure, but there are numerous woodrat access points to the crawl space and area between ceiling and roof that were not surveyed. Three woodrat nests were observed within the 50 feet of the Beatty house structure (Photos 39 – 41). DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 16 of 29 EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence survey was conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one half hour after sunset. Eight bats were observed exiting the structure (Table 3) at four locations (Photo 34 and 35). Table 3. Bat Emergence at Sierra Azul – Beatty Property Time No. of Bats Emerging Location Latitude Longitude 2032 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2033 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2033 1 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2038 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2046 1 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2047 2 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2048 1 south 37° 11' 26.84" N 121° 59' 8.45" W Table 4. Woodrat nest locations Beatty Property Location (see photos 39-41) Latitude Longitude Flagging Color South of house – woodrat number 1 37.1906508 -121.9856141 Pink Down hillside from house – woodrat number 2 37.1909208 -121.9857824 Pink In tree adjacent to house – woodrat number 3 37.1909558 -121.9858746 Pink DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Beatty Property provides highly suitable bat roosting habitat. Based on the observed presence of bat signs throughout the structure, observed bats roosting within, and bats emerging from the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat sign was observed throughout the structure and natural nests observed outside. Recommendations for the Beatty Property include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to removal activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 17 of 29 Photo 27. Beatty property. Photo 28. The housing structure is located beneath a canopy of coast live oaks (photo facing west). Photo 29. Two snags that could support roosting bats on west side of Beatty structure. Photo 32. Hole on wall that could provide bat access. Photo 33. Wooden slats peeling away from the wall. Photo 34. Bats observed emerging from hole in wall (circled in red) on east side of the house. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 18 of 29 Photo 35. Bats observed emerging from wooden slats (circled in red) on west side of the house. Photo 36. Bat urine staining and guano on wall; Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting. Photo 37. Stick pile on top of stove in kitchen. Photo 38. Large amount of woodrat feces on floor. Photo 39. Woodrat nest number 1 is located under an ornamental bush 9 meters south of the structure . Photo 40. Woodrat nest number 2 is located along a fence 10 meters northeast of the structure. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 19 of 29 Photo 41. Woodrat nest number 3 is located in a tree, northwest of the structure. Photo 42. Woodrat A large amount of woodrat feces was observed in one location along the exterior of the structure. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 20 of 29 3.5 PURISIMA UPLANDS SUMMARY A survey for Purisima Uplands in San Mateo County, California was conducted on June 27, 2019 by biologists Victoria Brunal, Rachael Burnham, Ryan Byrnes, and Ben Dudek. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at all locations for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures, and a nighttime bat emergence survey at Areas B and E. No sign of roosting bats was detected during the daytime survey of existing structures. Fourteen dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures. Three bats were observed emerging from the roofline of the hunting cabin in Area E during the emergence survey. Acoustic recordings at Area E identified these three individual bats as two species: California myotis and Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis). No bats were observed during the emergence survey at Area B. RESULTS AREA A: The structure at Area A is a small, open, un-shaded shed with a corrugated tin roof. No sign of bats (e.g., guano pellets and urine staining) was observed on the inside of the structure. The exposure of the shed, and lack of small crevices inside the structure may make this building sub-optimal for day roosting bats. Dusky-footed woodrat sign (e.g., pellets) were observed inside the shed. Additionally, five woodrat nest structures were observed throughout the site, including a nest underneath Tank 13 and a second nest in a pipe leading away from the tank. AREA B: The inside of Tanks 1-2 could not be observed due to their height, but both tanks appeared to be single-walled and open on the top. These tanks are likely unsuitable for day roosting bats due to exposure to the elements and the lack of additional surfaces that could create crevices. The distillation column was capped on the top but appeared to have a small opening on its side about 15 feet off the ground that could potentially be used by roosting bats (Photo 43). The structure on the east side of Area B included a series of iron grates over a concrete box filled with water as well as a dilapidated shed with a corrugated tin roof. The shed contained pieces of wood attached to corrugated tin that created small crevices that could be suitable for bats, but no signs of bats were observed. Large woodrat nest structures were observed inside the series of iron gates and inside the dilapidated shed, as well as behind the shed (Photo 44 and 45). AREA C: Tanks 3-6 appeared sealed and therefore unlikely to support any bat roosting habitat. The roof on Tank 7 is in the process of falling off the structure. Where the ceiling hung over the tank, there was a small area where bats could find shelter, but no sign of bats was observed. One woodrat nest was observed near Tank 3, and another nest was observed near Tank 6. AREA D: Tanks 8-12, the area around the concrete pylons, and the various debris piles all were searched. The tanks all appeared to be single-walled without any additional surfaces to create crevices suitable for day-roosting bats. Open tops, or open sides in the cases of tanks lying on their sides, created exposure to DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 21 of 29 the elements that may preclude these structures from being used by bats (Photo 46). A large woodrat nest was observed inside Tank 11, and two smaller satellite nests were observed surrounding the tank. AREA E: The exterior of the hunting cabin had rotted and loose wood paneling, especially near the roofline, that could be suitable for roosting bats (Photo 47 and 48). A search of the structure’s exterior found no sign of bats, however, many holes and crevices that led to the space between the roof and the structure’s interior could not be fully observed. A search of the interior of the structure revealed that the previous owners had used the cabin recently. Maternity colony day-roosting habitat was observed inside the structure and no guano pellets or urine staining were observed. Additionally, no sign of woodrats were observed inside the cabin, however small mammals droppings (likely Peromyscus sp.) were present throughout the cabin. One large woodrat nest structure was observed behind the cabin. EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence surveys at Areas B and E were conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one and half hours after sunset. At Area B, the biologists observed the dilapidated building and an opening on the distillation column. No bats were observed emerging from the small opening on the distillation column, or from the dilapidated structure on the east side of Area B. Additionally no bats were observed flying over the habitat. At Area E, the biologist observed the roofline along the front of the hunting cabin. Three bats were observed emerging from the front of the hunting cabin near the roofline. As the bats were seen flying from the cabin, the acoustic recording device set up in front of the cabin identified two species of bats: California myotis and Mexican free-tailed bat. After emergence, bats were observed flying over the habitat and continued to be recorded by the recording device. Table 5. Woodrat nest locations Purisma Uplands Location Latitude Longitude Flagging Color Area A – woodrat nest 1 wooden shed 37.401899 -122.410356 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 2 near T13 37.401916 -122.410164 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 3 near T13 37.401961 -122.410085 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 4 near T13 37.402006 -122.410073 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 5 near T13 37.402015 -122.409983 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 6 near T11 37.402713 -122.409107 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 7 near T11 37.402723 -122.409152 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 8 near T11 37.402731 -122.409062 Pink Area C – woodrat nest 9 near T6 37.402968 -122.407817 Pink Area C – woodrat nest 10 near T3 37.403112 -122.407635 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 11 near Storage Shed 37.403192 -122.407431 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 12 near Storage Shed 37.403155 -122.407364 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 13 near Storage Shed 37.403191 -122.407363 Pink Hunting Cabin – woodrat nest 14 37.406049 -122.403736 Pink DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 22 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS None of the tanks to be removed provide suitable bat roost habitat. The structure in Area A provides sub- optimal day roosting habitat and the shed in Area B provides suitable bat roosting habitat in the form of crevices although no bats or signs of bats were observed at either structure. No bats or signs of bats were observed during inspections of the interior of the Hunting Cabin in Area E, however, three bats were observed emerging during night surveys. Based on the observation of bats emerging from the Hunting Cabin this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat signs and nests were observed throughout the property in structures, debris piles and natural nests. Recommendations for the Purisima Property include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to demolition and debris removal activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure demolition activities at the Area E Hunting Cabin.  Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat for impacts to removal of maternity roost habitat at Area E Hunting Cabin as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW. This replacement habitat will serve as replacement habitat for all bat roost habitat removed or disturbed during removal activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 43. Area B – the distillation column was sealed on top but appeared to have a small opening on the left-hand side near the valve connection. Photo 44. Area B – woodrat nest structure inside the series of iron grates. This structure sits over a concrete spring box filled with water. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 23 of 29 Photo 45. Area B – woodrat nest structure inside the dilapidated building. Photo 46. Area D – most tanks were single-walled without any small crevice space for roosting bats. Photo 47. Area E – additional openings and interstitial spaces underneath the roofline. Photo 48. Area E – openings underneath the roofline of the hunting cabin. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 24 of 29 3.6 RANCHO SAN ANTONIO PRESERVE‐ DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN SUMMARY The survey for White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm in Cupertino, California was conducted on June 18, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at the barn and surrounding area evaluating potential bat roosts and woodrat nest structures. Though the barn provides potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat, no roosting bats were observed. Signs (bat guano) of bat roosting were observed in the upper level of the barn. In general, highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat and foraging habitat was observed throughout the site in the form of bat tree roosts and man-made structures. No dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures although signs of rodent activity were observed throughout the barn. STRUCTURE The barn that was surveyed is one of many structures in Deer Hollow Farm that is an active educational farm. The lower level of the barn is actively used as a goat milk barn, storage location, and hay barn (Photos 49 and 50). The upper level / former hayloft of the barn is less stable although it too is actively used for storage. The barn receives partial shade from the riparian corridor to the north and a large valley oak to the south. The barn has a pitched roof with corrugated metal sheets held up in regular intervals by rafters (Photo 51 and 52). RESULTS The entire structure is accessible to bats and rodents through the gaps between the roof and hayloft doors which are left open. The openings allow for bats to easily enter the building and roost although the openness may reduce the ability for the barn to be used as a maternity roost. These conditions provide suitable bat roosting habitat within the structure including the crevice habitat between the rafters and the corrugated roof. Bat guano was observed in the interior of the structure on the floor throughout the hayloft (Photo 53). Abundant insect activity was observed in the adjacent riparian area providing suitable bat foraging habitat and the adjacent riparian area has plentiful tree roost habitat available. Rodent sign is present throughout the structure with rodent droppings observed (Photo 54). No woodrat nests were observed on the premises or within the 50-foot buffer. While no woodrat nests were observed, the riparian habitat near the structure provides suitable habitat and absence of woodrats should not be assumed. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS While no day roosting bats were observed during the surveys, signs of bats presence (guano) was observed. The site serves a potentially suitable day and night roosting habitat with adjacent suitable bat foraging and tree roost habitat. DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 25 of 29 No signs of woodrats were present in the structure or surrounding habitat. The active farm nearby likely limits the potential of woodrats to occur within a construction footprint for the barn, however, the nearby riparian habitat provides suitable habitat and therefore woodrat absence should not be assumed. Recommendations for the Deer Hollow White Barn include:  Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities.  Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1.  Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities.  Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 49. White Barn exterior showing hayloft doors and open access points. Photo 50. White Barn exterior showing hayloft doors and open access points. Photo 51. White Barn hayloft with crevice roost habitat between roof and rafters. Photo 52. Interior of hayloft with wooden slat openings DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 26 of 29 Photo 53. Bat guano on floorboards. Photo 54. Lower level with hay storage and milk barn DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 27 of 29 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of these surveys, bats and woodrats are currently using multiple locations within and adjacent to the structures surveyed. 4.1 BATS The recommendations below should be implemented for each survey location as discussed above in Section 3. At some of these locations suitable bat habitat was observed but no bats were observed during the daytime roost surveys or during emergence. However, bats may switch roosts on a nightly basis, therefore, there is still potential of bats roosting within these structures where suitable habitat is observed. A demolition and deterrent plan for each location that identifies locations for deterrence and what mitigation measures (i.e., replacement habitat) are warranted prior to structure demolition and/or stabilization should be completed as recommended above for each survey location. The following measures and recommendations for bat deterrence and demolition will be included in the exclusion/deterrent plan. Recommendations should be implemented on a site by site, case by case basis. Not all recommendations are appropriate for all locations, see the Discussion and Recommendations section for each survey location above for reference. General bat avoidance and minimization measures  Within two days of the start of work, at all project locations, preconstruction bat roost surveys should be conducted.  If work is anticipated to occur during the bat wintering period (generally from November 16 through February 15) preconstruction winter roost surveys should be conducted. No building or tree work (over 16” dbh) should be conducted during this time if surveys determine that special status bats or hibernacula are present during winter roost surveys.  If individual nonbreeding and non‐special status bats are present, a qualified biologist may be retained to remove the bats and work may proceed year-round at La Honda Creek Preserve – Redwood Cabin, Sierra Azul Preserve – Meyer Property structures, and the Rancho San Antonio Preserve site. If a maternity roost or special status species bat is observed, no work is allowed without first excluding and providing alternate roost site(s) outside of the breeding season.  Demolition should be conducted during warmer weather when nighttime lows are not below 50° Fahrenheit, and most bats are likely to be active.  Recommend that crevices first be demolished with hand tools.  Initiate demolition in the early evening after sunset with a bat biologist present to capture and temporarily hold any bats that are uncovered.  If evening work is not feasible, initiate demolition in the early afternoon with a qualified bat biologist present. Early afternoon work will ensure that any remaining roosting bats are not in torpor, as torpid bats may not immediately arouse and escape with disturbance. If any bats are DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 28 of 29 uncovered, they should be temporarily held and released in the evening. Bat roost deterrent/exclusion plan At survey locations with potentially suitable bat roost habitat observed, a site-specific bat roost deterrent plan for is recommended. The following measures below should be considered but may not be applicable to all sites. Alternative roost deterrents may be implemented if approved by qualified biologist. The site- specific deterrent plan shall be submitted to CDFW for approval.  Deterrents shall be placed outside of April through August maternity season.  At least seven (7) days before the properties are demolished and/or stabilized, open all windows and doors to increase airflow.  Deploy ultrasonic acoustic deterrents inside the structures and/or near areas where bats may roost. No acoustic deterrents shall be places next to roosting bats, if bats are observed, deterrents will be placed once bats have left the site.  Deploy/Install one-way bat doors at locations where bats are observed entering and exiting structures. One-way bat doors and exclusion of bats from the building should occur outside of the April through August maternity season. Replacement maternity roost habitat At survey locations with identified maternity roosts, no building demolition or tree work (over 16” dbh) should be conducted April 15 – August 31. Where structures with identified maternity roost habitat will be eliminated, replacement habitat is recommended. CDFW may not require mitigation for these locations, therefore, CDFW should be contacted for guidance for each specific location.  If CDFW requires replacement habitat, no work should occur without first excluding and providing natural or manmade alternate roost site(s) outside of the breeding season.  Alternate roost site(s) should be developed by District Natural Resources staff or a consulting biologist and submitted to CDFW before installation.  Whenever possible alternative roost site(s) should be provided 6 months to 1 year prior to the removal of maternity roosting habitat to allow bats adequate time to discover the new locations.  Artificial alternative roost site(s) shall be monitored for occupancy by a qualified biologist within one year of installation. 4.2 WOODRATS The recommendations below should be implemented for each survey location as discussed above in Section 3. A preconstruction survey is warranted at all locations as woodrat houses may become occupied or unoccupied, and new nests constructed prior to project work. General woodrat avoidance measures DR A F T Attachment 2 Page 29 of 29  Conduct focused follow up surveys are at all structures at least five days before construction to confirm the presence of woodrat houses and develop a deterrence/relocation plan if necessary.  For all woodrat nests that occur in natural habitats (i.e. not within any structure footprint) and cannot be avoided by project activities, a qualified biologist shall live trap to determine if the nest is in use. Trapping activities should occur prior to April and after mid-July each year to prevent impacts to woodrats rearing young or young woodrats. If a nest is found to be unoccupied or not in use for 3 full days (2 nights of trapping), then it may be removed. The nest shall be relocated, or a pile of replacement sticks shall be placed outside of the development footprint for future colonization or re-use.  In some District locations, woodrats have colonized abandoned buildings, old vehicles, diffuse garbage piles, or other locations where nests are difficult to locate, individuals cannot be live- trapped consistently, and/or there is a lack of woody materials for nest reconstruction. In these instances, live trapping is not required (especially if there is a risk to human health) if the surrounding area provides suitable habitat or supports a healthy colony that is being avoided and/or can be enhanced. Work at these locations must occur prior to April and after mid-July to prevent impacts to woodrats rearing young.  Once trapped, nests shall be torn down and rebuilt surrounding a log-based structure, an inverted wooden planter, or similar structure having at least one entrance and exit hole that is slightly buried into the ground to anchor. Any cached food and nest material encountered shall be placed within the new structure during rebuilding.  If individual rats are present, they will be encouraged to leave the area on their own which may include demolition or cleanup in phases, and/or hand removal of materials. If individual woodrats are observed during implementation, work in the immediate area shall cease until the animal leaves the area on its own. Work may continue at other locations away from the observation location. If the animal does not leave the area on its own, the project biologist or a biological monitor shall be notified. Work may proceed at the observation site, once the animal has left the area on its own or a biological monitor is present to ensure that the individual woodrats are not harmed.  If nests are present that cannot be trapped or removed, woody debris piles that look like woodrat houses can be constructed to provide opportunities for sheltering and colonization by displaced woodrats.  Relocated nests are expected to eventually be re-colonized and should be monitored one-year post construction using visual surveys and/or wildlife cameras to determine if a relocated nest has returned to use. DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT F Topographic Site Plan by Sandis DR A F T Attachment 2 4 2019 MATCHLINE (SEE SHEET 3) DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT G Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers DR A F T Attachment 2 Mothballing Guidelines The focus of mothballing procedures is to stabilize and secure the building: Stabilization • Structurally stabilize the building, based on a professional condition assessment. • Exterminate or control pests, including termites and rodents. • Protect the exterior from moisture penetration. Mothballing • Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. • Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. • Secure or modify utilities. • Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. Mothballing Checklist In developing mothballing procedures, the following checklist should be used to ensure that work items are not inadvertently omitted. Moisture • Is the roof watertight? • Do the gutters retain their proper pitch and are they clean? • Are downspout joints intact? • Are drains unobstructed? • Is wood siding in good condition? • Is site properly graded for water run-off? • Is vegetation cleared from around the building foundation to avoid trapping moisture? Pests • Have nests/pests been removed from the building's interior and eaves? • Are adequate screens in place to guard against pests? • Has the building been inspected and treated for termites, carpenter ants, rodents, etc.? • If toxic droppings from bats, rats and pigeons are present, has a special company been brought in for its disposal? Housekeeping • Have the following been removed from the interior: trash, hazardous materials such as inflammable liquids, poisons, and paints and canned goods that could freeze and burst? • Is the interior broom-clean? • Have furnishings been removed to a safe location? • If furnishings are remaining in the building, are they properly protected from dust, pests, ultraviolet light, and other potentially harmful problems? • Have significant architectural elements that have become detached from the building been labeled and stored in a safe place? • Is there a building file? Security • Have fire and police departments been notified that the building will be mothballed? DR A F T Attachment 2 • Are smoke and fire detectors in working order? • Are the exterior doors and windows securely fastened? • Are plans in place to monitor the building on a regular basis? • Are the keys to the building in a secure but accessible location? • Are the grounds being kept from becoming overgrown? Utilities • Have utility companies disconnected/shut off or fully inspected water, gas, and electric lines? • If the building will not remain heated, have water pipes been drained and glycol added? Ventilation • Have steps been taken to ensure proper ventilation of the building? • Have interior doors been left open for ventilation purposes? • Has the secured building been checked within the last 3 months for interior dampness or excessive humidity? Maintenance Chart The following maintenance action items should be considered when developing the maintenance program for the building to be mothballed. 1-3 months; periodic • Regular drive by surveillance • Check attic during storms if possible • Monthly walk arounds • Check entrances • Check window coverings for breakage • Mowing as required • Check for graffiti or vandalism • Enter every 3 months to air out • Check for musty air • Check for moisture damage • Check battery packs and monitoring equipment • Check for evidence of pest intrusion Every 6 months; spring and fall • Site clean-up; pruning and trimming • Gutter and downspout check • Check crawlspace for pests • Clean out storm drains Every 12 months • Maintenance contract inspections for equipment/utilities • Check roof for loose or missing shingles • Termite and pest inspection/treatment • Exterior materials spot repair and touch up painting • Remove bird droppings or other stains from exterior • Maintain building defensible space per Cal Fire standards • Check and update building file Reference: Park, Sharon C., 1993. Mothballing Historic Buildings. Preservation Brief No. 31. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, DC: Government. Printing Office. 15 p. Available online at https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/31-mothballing.htm DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT H Arborist Report by Kielty Arborist Services LLC DR A F T Attachment 2 Kielty Arborist Services LLC Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 October 21, 2019 ZFA Structural Engineers Attn: Mr. Steven Patton 1390 El Camino Real Suite 100 San Carlos, CA 94070 Site: Beatty Property, Los Gatos, CA Dear Mr. Patton, As requested on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. Work is proposed on the site, and your concern as to the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit. This report will go over the existing health of the trees, and how to protect them from potential construction impacts. Once site plans have been completed, they should be sent to the Project Arborist for further review. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The trees in question were located on a topography map provided by you. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). Each tree was tagged to indicate the tree number as shown in the survey portion of this report. The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the trees was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer where possible. The canopy spreads were paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. DR A F T Attachment 2 Beatty 10/21/19 (2) Showing location of trees on site DR A F T Attachment 2 Beatty 10/21/19 (3) Summary: All of the oak trees on site are in fair to good condition. The oak trees are recommended to be pruned using the crown reduction pruning method, where cuts are made out on the ends of the limbs to reduce limb leverage. This will reduce the risk of a future limb failure where tree leans or decay is present. The oak trees are native to the area. No irrigation shall be applied to the oak trees on site. (Picture showing oak trees around existing building) Redwood tree #2 is not native to the area and in poor condition. Redwood trees require significant dry season irrigation to maintain a healthy canopy. No signs of irrigation for the tree were observed. The tree is under drought stress and is in decline due to no supplemental irrigation. Redwood trees should not be placed near oak trees because the needed irrigation for the redwood tree could have a negative impact on the surrounding oak trees. Oak trees that are irrigated during the dry season are susceptible to root rot disease. Root rot is one of the major causes of tree failure in urban conditions where irrigation is near an oak tree. The redwood tree is recommended for removal as it does not fit into the existing landscape. Laurel tree #8 is the only other tree on site in poor condition. The tree has been topped in the past. A wire is also girdling the tree trunk. Topped trees create hazardous conditions as the new growth is weakly attached. Also, the past topping cut is prone to decay. This tree has a high risk of limb failure. Tree removal is recommended as there is no way to mitigate the high risk of limb failure. Showing topped bay laurel #8 DR A F T Attachment 2 Beatty 10/21/19 (4) Dead Monterey pine trees were observed far from the building site (50 feet +). The dead pine trees are a fire hazard to the area and should be removed as soon as possible. Monterey pine trees are not native to this location and likely died due to bark beetles and the prolonged period of drought. The following tree protection plan will help to ensure the future survival of the trees on site. Showing dead Monterey pine tree Tree Protection Plan: Tree Protection Zones Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for tree protection zones should be 6’ tall, metal chain link material supported by metal 1.5” diameter poles, pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than 2’. The distance between metal support poles shall not be more than 10'. The location for the protective fencing for the trees on site should be placed at the tree driplines where possible. Where it is not possible to place tree protection zones at the dripline because of approved proposed work or existing hardscapes, the tree protection fencing shall be placed at the edge of the proposed work or hardscapes, but not closer than 2 feet from the trunk of any tree. No equipment or materials shall be stored or cleaned inside the protection zones. Areas where tree protection fencing needs to be reduced for access, should be mulched with 6” of coarse wood chips with ½ inch plywood on top (landscape barrier). The plywood boards should be attached together in order to minimize movement. The spreading of chips will help to reduce risk of soil compaction. All tree protection measures must be installed prior to any demolition or construction activity at the site. DR A F T Attachment 2 Beatty 10/21/19 (5) Avoid the following conditions: DO NOT: A. Allow run off of spillage of damaging materials into the area below any tree canopy. B. Store materials, stockpile soil, or park or drive vehicles within the TPZ. C. Cut, break, skin, or bruise roots, branches, or trunks without first obtaining authorization from the Project Arborist. D. Allow fires under and adjacent to trees. E. Discharge exhaust into foliage. F. Secure cable, chain, or rope to trees or shrubs. G. Trench, dig, or otherwise excavate within the dripline or TPZ of the tree(s) without first obtaining authorization from the Project Arborist. Landscape Buffer Where tree protection does not cover the entire root zone of the trees at the dripline, or when a smaller tree protection zone is needed for access, a landscape buffer consisting of wood chips spread to a depth of six inches with plywood or steel plates placed on top will be placed where foot traffic is expected to be heavy. The landscape buffer will help to reduce compaction to the unprotected root zone. Root Cutting and Grading Avoid injury to tree roots. When a ditching machine, which is being used outside of the dripline of trees, encounters roots smaller than 2", the wall of the trench adjacent to the trees shall be hand trimmed, making clear, clean cuts through the roots. All damaged, torn and cut roots shall be given a clean cut to remove ragged edges, which promote decay. Trenches shall be filled within 24 hours, but where this is not possible, the side of the trench adjacent to the trees shall be kept shaded with four layers of dampened, untreated burlap, wetted as frequently as necessary to keep the burlap wet. Roots 2" or larger, when encountered, shall be reported immediately to the Project Arborist, who will decide whether the Contractor may cut the root as mentioned above or shall excavate by hand or with compressed air under the root. Root is to be protected with dampened burlap. All roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2” diameter) or large masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the Project Arborist. The Project Arborist, at this time, may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the root zone. Existing grades underneath the protected tree driplines are to remain as is. If grade changes greater than 4 inches are to take place, special mitigation measures will be needed to reduce impacts to the trees. Trenching and Excavation (for any reason) Route pipes outside of the area that is 10 times the diameter of a protected tree to avoid conflict with roots. If this is not possible, trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand in combination with an air spade when inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to the tree. All trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open DR A F T Attachment 2 Beatty 10/21/19 (6) for a period of time, will require the covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with plywood to help protect the exposed roots. When utilities need to be placed within a distance of 3 times the diameter or less of a protected tree on site, the Contractor shall bore beneath the dripline of the tree. The boring shall take place not less than 3' below the surface of the soil in order to avoid encountering "feeder" roots. Pruning Any needed or recommended pruning shall be supervised by the Project Arborist, and must be done by a licensed tree care provider. All pruning for trees in fair to good health must stay underneath 25% of the total foliage of the canopy. Irrigation Because the trees observed on site that are to be retained are all native trees(oaks), no supplemental irrigation is required. Anytime the trees are to be impacted by minor root cutting, supplemental irrigation should be applied as prescribed by the Project Arborist. Construction related damage to trees Any damage due to construction activities shall be reported to the Project Arborist within 24 hours so that remedial action can be taken. Inspections It is the contractor’s responsibility to contact the site arborist when work is to take place within 10 times the diameter of a tree on site. Kielty Arborist Services can be reached by email at kkarbor0476@yahoo.com or by phone at (650) 515-9783 (Kevin), or (650) 532-4418 (David). The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A DR A F T Attachment 2 Beatty 10/21/19 (7) Kielty Arborist Services P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like a medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees. Arborist: ____________________________ Kevin R. Kielty Date: October 21, 2019 DR A F T Attachment 2 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – Beatty Property Home Sierra Azul Preserve, Santa Clara County, CA EXHIBIT I Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Open Space District Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA ZFA Structural Engineers CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 18 December 2019 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 Page & Turnbull Inc. BOD & Alternative Evaluation dated 9-30-19. ZFA Structural Engineers draft estimate review comments 10-31-19. Comments and clarifications received through 11 December 2019. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • COST ESTIMATE INTRODUCTORY NOTES This estimate is based on verbal direction from the client and the following items, received 30 September 2019: General ZFA Structural Engineers BOD Reports dated October 2019. Sketches of 11 July 2019 with BOD option notes per Report. Terracon Hazmat report dated 8-13-19. Kielty Arborist Services LLC Report dated 9-30-19. Construction start date of July 2020 The following items are excluded from this estimate: Professional fees. Building permits and fees. Inspections and tests. Furniture, fixtures & equipment, except as noted. Installation of owner furnished equipment. Construction change order contingency. Overtime. Items referenced as NOT INCLUDED or NIC in estimate. The midpoint of construction of January 2021 is based on: We strongly advise the client to review this estimate in detail. If any interpretations in this estimate appear to differ from those intended by the design documents, they should be addressed immediately. Estimated construction duration of 12 months This estimate is based on a Design-Bid-Build delivery method. This estimate is based on prevailing wage labor rates. This estimate is based on a detailed measurement of quantities. We have made allowances for items that were not clearly defined in the drawings. The client should verify these allowances. This estimate is based on a minimum of four competitive bids and a stable bidding market. This estimate should be updated if more definitive information becomes available, or if there is any change in scope. DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST GFA $/SF AREA WHITE BARN OPTIONS: 01. WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 $39,004 1,012 $38.54 01A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 02. WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 $116,423 1,012 $115.04 02A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 03. WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 $396,904 1,012 $392.20 03A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 04. WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 $171,982 1,012 $169.94 REDWOOD CABIN OPTIONS: 05. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 $54,250 1,980 $27.40 05A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 06. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 $194,501 1,980 $98.23 06A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 07. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 $736,793 1,980 $372.12 07A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 08. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 $245,869 1,980 $124.18 BEATTY PROPERTY OPTIONS: 09. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 $63,920 1,912 $33.43 09A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 10. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 $208,791 1,912 $109.20 10A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 11. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 $674,313 1,912 $352.67 11A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 12. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 $233,284 1,912 $122.01 1.) The numbers above include mark-ups including escalation to January 2021 at 5% Per Annum. contractor general conditions and insurances. 2.) Design contingency is zero for options 1 and 4. 5% for option 2, and 10% for option 3. 3.) The Owner should add for soft costs and include a separate construction contingency. 4.) Long term maintenance costs have been separated to delineate from capitol costs. PROJECT SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 1 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $34,249 $33.84 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $34,249 $33.84 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$3,425 $3.38 SUBTOTAL $37,674 $37.23 INSURANCE 2.00%$753 $0.74 SUBTOTAL $38,427 $37.97 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$576 $0.57 TOTAL BUILDING COST $39,004 $38.54 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 2 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $34,249 $33.84 111 Site Preparation $6,850 $6.77 112 Site Improvements $27,399 $27.07 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $34,249 $33.84 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 3 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel)NIC This design idea was not practical due to location TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 140 LF 2.50 $350 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $6,850 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)300 LF 67.42 $20,226 Add for barbed wire outrigger 300 LF 7.42 $2,225 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $27,399 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 4 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 5 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $25,040 $24.74 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $23,320 $23.04 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $49,002 $48.42 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $97,362 $96.21 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$4,868 $4.81 SUBTOTAL $102,230 $101.02 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$10,223 $10.10 SUBTOTAL $112,453 $111.12 INSURANCE 2.00%$2,249 $2.22 SUBTOTAL $114,702 $113.34 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$1,721 $1.70 TOTAL BUILDING COST $116,423 $115.04 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 6 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $25,040 $24.74 031 Floor and Roof Construction $25,040 $24.74 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $23,320 $23.04 041 Exterior Walls $23,320 $23.04 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $49,002 $48.42 111 Site Preparation $49,002 $48.42 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $97,362 $96.21 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 7 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor replacement work Add pressure treated blocking and shims at deteriorated 120 LF 30.00 $3,600 wood grade beams to prevent further settlement Structure strengthening at walls Wall braces inside exterior wall for lateral strengthening Treated timber cross braces, 2x10 each side of post Cross braces at Grid 1 & 3, 18' average lengths 288 LF 27.50 $7,920 Fix braces T&B to posts 16 EA 175.00 $2,800 Cross braces at Grid A & F, 18' long 288 LF 27.50 $7,920 Fix braces T&B to posts 16 EA 175.00 $2,800 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $25,040 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building, limited Close off doors, board up with plywood 240 SF 15.00 $3,600 Fill other miscellaneous openings, windows and gaps 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Rehab windows Repair window frames 56 LF 50.00 $2,800 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 56 LF 45.00 $2,520 Clear lexan view panel 86 SF 40.00 $3,440 Paint and seal window frames 56 LF 15.00 $840 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $23,320 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure Shoring and support work, Allowance 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 140 LF 2.50 $350 Hazmat demolition Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 8 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior 1,430 SF 3.60 $5,148 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $49,002 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 9 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $26,117 $25.81 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $83,050 $82.07 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $26,571 $26.26 05 ROOFING $32,872 $32.48 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $146,258 $144.52 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $314,868 $311.13 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$15,743 $15.56 SUBTOTAL $330,611 $326.69 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$17,908 $17.70 SUBTOTAL $348,520 $344.39 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$34,852 $34.44 SUBTOTAL $383,371 $378.83 INSURANCE 2.00%$7,667 $7.58 SUBTOTAL $391,039 $386.40 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$5,866 $5.80 TOTAL BUILDING COST $396,904 $392.20 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 10 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $26,117 $25.81 011 Standard Foundations $26,117 $25.81 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $83,050 $82.07 031 Floor and Roof Construction $83,050 $82.07 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $26,571 $26.26 041 Exterior Walls $26,571 $26.26 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING $32,872 $32.48 051 Roofing $32,872 $32.48 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $146,258 $144.52 111 Site Preparation $98,758 $97.59 112 Site Improvements $47,500 $46.94 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $314,868 $311.13 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 11 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) Perimeter footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (130 lf)14 CY 1,520.72 $21,966 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x2.5' deep (4ea)3 CY 1,245.34 $4,151 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $26,117 ELEMENT - SUBSTRUCTURE 021 SLAB ON GRADE Slab on grade retrofit work Note: Alternate option of slab on grade in lieu of replacing NIC sub floor framing assumed not required TOTAL - 021 SLAB ON GRADE ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor replacement work Replace 8x8 bearers, mount on new footings 120 LF 30.00 $3,600 Replace floor joists, 2x10 joists @ 16" o.c 1,012 SF 17.50 $17,710 Replace floor sheathing, 3/4" plywood 1,012 SF 6.40 $6,477 Anchors, joists and bearers into foundations 18 EA 250.00 $4,500 Roofing replacement work Replace rafters tails (2x6 Rafters @ 3' o.c, sloped)243 SF 30.00 $7,286 Install roof sheathing, 1/2" plywood over skip sheathing 1,214 SF 5.40 $6,558 Repair skip sheathing 1,214 SF 2.50 $3,036 Blocking between rafters at perimeter wall 140 LF 27.50 $3,850 Strengthening structure at walls Replace 4x4 knee braces to side bays 8 EA 240.00 $1,920 Shear wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Shear wall sections)1,048 SF 15.00 $15,720 Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 1,048 SF 4.60 $4,821 Plywood shear nailing 1,048 SF 1.50 $1,572 HDU's, hold downs bolted to sub structure framing 12 EA 150.00 $1,800 Seismic anchors below wall into foundations 12 EA 350.00 $4,200 Alternate option of steel tension rod bracing from roof to NIC foundations not anticipated TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $83,050 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior wall cladding work Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 12 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST 378 SF 17.50 $6,608 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Paint exterior Exterior wood cladding (Paint entire building)1,248 SF 3.23 $4,025 Premium at barn swing doors 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Page & Turnbull Recommendations: Replace doors, windows & locks, ADA, fine grading, planting, pathways Solid heavy duty panel doors on frame with H.D Hinges Single, wide swing 2 EA 3,626.93 $7,254 Locks and associated hardware 2 EA 630.00 $1,260 Wood windows, dual glazed 75 SF 70.65 $5,299 Paint window frames 75 SF 15.00 $1,125 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $26,571 ELEMENT - ROOFING 051 ROOFING Roof replacement Skip sheathing to remain 1,214 SF 3.21 $3,898 Corrugated metal roofing, steel pitch premium 1,214 SF 21.35 $25,922 (saving of $11,960 to project if metall roofing salvaged) Flashings and roof plumbing Metal cap ridge flashings 40 LF 31.84 $1,273 Metal edge rake coping 62 LF 28.51 $1,779 TOTAL - 051 ROOFING $32,872 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Earthwork Excavate existing soil under the building, 24" deep Excavate, small machine (Temporary demo access)82 CY 150.00 $12,369 Machine move dirt to outside building 82 CY 75.00 $6,184 Clean out dirt around posts and structure, by hand 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Site off haul Load tracks 99 CY 25.00 $2,474 Haul dirt 99 CY 60.00 $5,937 Dispose dirt 99 CY 30.00 $2,969 Sub floor replacement work Selective replacement 10% - 20%, old growth wood siding, vertically run Plywood sheathing or underlayment board installed over skip sheathing Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 13 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Remove 8x8 bearers, mounted on grade 120 LF 10.00 $1,200 Remove floor joists, piecemeal in existing structure 1,012 SF 5.00 $5,060 Remove floor sheathing, piecemeal in existing structure 1,012 SF 1.75 $1,771 Roofing replacement work Remove rafter tails, for replacement 243 SF 10.00 $2,429 Skip sheathing to remain Roof replacement Remove corrugated metal roofing 1,214 SF 2.40 $2,915 Remove flashings and roof plumbing Metal cap ridge flashings 40 LF 6.00 $240 Metal edge rake coping 62 LF 5.00 $310 Exterior wall cladding work Remove 10% to 20% old growth wood siding, vertically run 250 SF 5.00 $1,248 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Hazmat demolition Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior 1,430 SF 3.60 $5,148 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 10,000.00 $10,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $98,758 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Page & Turnbull Recommendations: Replace doors, windows & locks, ADA, fine grading, planting, pathways Site accessibility Grading to improve ADA accessibility 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 New hardscape pathway, ADA Compliant 1 LS 27,500.00 $27,500 Planting improvements 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $47,500 On-going maintenance, 20 year period Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 14 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 15 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $151,016 $149.23 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $151,016 $149.23 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$15,102 $14.92 SUBTOTAL $166,118 $164.15 INSURANCE 2.00%$3,322 $3.28 SUBTOTAL $169,440 $167.43 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$2,542 $2.51 TOTAL BUILDING COST $171,982 $169.94 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 16 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $151,016 $149.23 111 Site Preparation $151,016 $149.23 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $151,016 $149.23 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 17 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 1,012 SF 2.00 $2,024 Remove metal flashings 130 LF 5.00 $650 Remove exterior siding 1,500 SF 5.00 $7,500 Remove barn doors 3 EA 300.00 $900 Remove roof sheathing 1,012 SF 2.00 $2,024 Demolish wood framed structure 1,012 SF 20.00 $20,240 Demolish flooring 1,012 SF 5.00 $5,060 Demolish sub floor framing 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Remove wood Load wood debris in trucks 187 CY 20.00 $3,748 Haul wood in trucks 187 CY 40.00 $7,496 Dispose 187 CY 15.00 $2,811 Hazmat demolition Hazmat monitoring and clearance 412 SF 5.00 $2,059 Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 Biologist monitoring 1 LS 3,000.00 $3,000 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $151,016 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 18 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $47,637 $24.06 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $47,637 $24.06 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$4,764 $2.41 SUBTOTAL $52,401 $26.47 INSURANCE 2.00%$1,048 $0.53 SUBTOTAL $53,449 $26.99 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$802 $0.40 TOTAL BUILDING COST $54,250 $27.40 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 19 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $47,637 $24.06 111 Site Preparation $17,245 $8.71 112 Site Improvements $30,392 $15.35 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $47,637 $24.06 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 20 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Approved weed abatement product to perimeter of structure 198 LF 2.50 $495 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $17,245 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)340 LF 67.42 $22,922 Add for barbed wire outrigger 340 LF 7.42 $2,522 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $30,392 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 21 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 22 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $42,979 $21.71 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $27,023 $13.65 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $92,655 $46.80 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $162,657 $82.15 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$8,133 $4.11 SUBTOTAL $170,790 $86.26 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$17,079 $8.63 SUBTOTAL $187,869 $94.88 INSURANCE 2.00%$3,757 $1.90 SUBTOTAL $191,626 $96.78 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$2,874 $1.45 TOTAL BUILDING COST $194,501 $98.23 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 23 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $42,979 $21.71 031 Floor and Roof Construction $42,979 $21.71 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $27,023 $13.65 041 Exterior Walls $27,023 $13.65 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $92,655 $46.80 111 Site Preparation $87,185 $44.03 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities $5,470 $2.76 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $162,657 $82.15 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 24 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Foundation support for building Cribbing per Corp of Engineers - refer to Site Preparation TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Exterior porch Replace porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 17.85 $9,978 Bracing and blocking joists 559 SF 5.00 $2,795 Replace porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 17.50 $9,783 Replace porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 191 LF 22.00 $4,202 Replace porch framing, East side (Allow 50%) Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 402 SF 17.85 $7,176 Bracing and blocking joists 402 SF 5.00 $2,010 Replace porch decking, East side (Allow 50%) Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 402 SF 17.50 $7,035 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $42,979 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building Close off windows, board up with plywood 285 SF 12.50 $3,563 Close off doors, board up with plywood 84 SF 15.00 $1,260 Close off skylights, bpard up with plywood 240 SF 10.00 $2,400 Fill other miscellaneous openings and gaps 1,980 SF 10.00 $19,800 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $27,023 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure - support from underneath Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 25 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Pressure treated wood box cribbing, 6x6 members West elevation, 6' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(24 EA)7 EA 2,160.00 $15,120 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 7 EA 420.00 $2,940 North elevation, 8' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(32 EA)4 EA 2,880.00 $11,520 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 4 EA 420.00 $1,680 South elevation, 6' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(24EA)3 EA 2,160.00 $6,480 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 3 EA 420.00 $1,260 East elevation, 8' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(32 EA)4 EA 2,880.00 $11,520 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 4 EA 420.00 $1,680 East elevation, 12' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(48 EA)1 EA 4,320.00 $4,320 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 1 EA 420.00 $420 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 500.00 $500 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 250.00 $250 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Large tree removal (3 Tan oaks, 2 Madrones) - 5 Total 5 EA 2,500.00 $12,500 Debris removal, grinding 5 EA 1,500.00 $7,500 Remove girdle from Redwood trees, per Arborist report 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 Replacement maternity roost 1 EA 1,500.00 $1,500 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $87,185 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Utility disconnections Disconnect plumbing and provide cap/valve 1 LS 2,380.00 $2,380 Disconnect power and safe off 1 LS 2,210.00 $2,210 Remove obsolete power board 1 LS 880.00 $880 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $5,470 On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 26 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $141,497 $71.46 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $165,195 $83.43 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $36,720 $18.55 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $10,280 $5.19 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL $86,770 $43.82 09 ELECTRICAL $44,150 $22.30 10 EQUIPMENT $15,381 $7.77 11 SITEWORK $84,512 $42.68 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $584,505 $295.20 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$29,225 $14.76 SUBTOTAL $613,730 $309.96 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$33,244 $16.79 SUBTOTAL $646,974 $326.75 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$64,697 $32.68 SUBTOTAL $711,671 $359.43 INSURANCE 2.00%$14,233 $7.19 SUBTOTAL $725,905 $366.62 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$10,889 $5.50 TOTAL BUILDING COST $736,793 $372.12 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 27 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $141,497 $71.46 011 Standard Foundations $141,497 $71.46 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $165,195 $83.43 031 Floor and Roof Construction $165,195 $83.43 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $36,720 $18.55 041 Exterior Walls $36,720 $18.55 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $10,280 $5.19 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes $10,280 $5.19 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL $86,770 $43.82 081 Plumbing $83,470 $42.16 082 H.V.A.C.$3,300 $1.67 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL $44,150 $22.30 091 Standard Electrical $44,150 $22.30 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT $15,381 $7.77 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings $15,381 $7.77 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $84,512 $42.68 111 Site Preparation $24,512 $12.38 112 Site Improvements $35,000 $17.68 113 Site Utilities $25,000 $12.63 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $584,505 $295.20 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 28 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) 46 CY 1,188.13 $54,707 51 CY 1,188.13 $60,621 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x3.5' deep, exterior 14.0 CY 983.81 $13,773 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x3.5' deep, interior 12.6 CY 983.81 $12,396 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $141,497 ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor framing repairs Trim 12" off base of existing timber posts resting on grade 19 EA 340.00 $6,460 Treat seal base of poles 19 EA 320.00 $6,080 Achor base plates with knife plates connected into footing 19 EA 750.00 $14,250 Anchors connecting poles into new footings 19 EA 450.00 $8,550 Floor leveling Systematically level floor to correct settlement Hydraulic jack at new pad locations - see item below Lift/level floor level, hydraulic jack, difficult terrain 990 SF 13.00 $12,870 (Allow 50% floor area) Sub floor strengthening Add sub floor braces at foundation tie beams Treated timber cross braces, 4x10 each side of post Cross braces at Grid 1 & 3, 12' average lengths 192 LF 35.00 $6,720 Fix braces T&B to posts (Hardware & Connections)32 EA 195.00 $6,240 Cross braces at Grid A,B,C,D, 12' average lengths 192 LF 35.00 $6,720 Fix braces T&B to posts (Hardware & Connections)32 EA 195.00 $6,240 Wall/structure strengthening Retrofit 8x8 posts, 8' o.c, inside face of exterior walls 30 EA 432.00 $12,960 Fix posts to logs, simpson 0.22"x15" log screws (x2)30 EA 495.00 $14,850 (Assume 12 logs per post and 24 fixings) Anchor posts, T&B (Roof diaphram & bottom to sub floor)30 EA 425.00 $12,750 Exterior porch Replace porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 17.85 $9,978 Bracing and blocking joists 559 SF 5.00 $2,795 Replace porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 17.50 $9,783 Repair/replace porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 191 LF 12.00 $2,292 Replace porch framing, East side (Allow 50%) Foundation tie beams, stepped, 4'wide x 3.5' deep (Grid 1 & 3) Part hand machine dig/ rebar cages Foundation tie beams, stepped, 4'wide x 3.5' deep (Grid A,B,C,D) Part hand machine dig/ rebar cages Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 29 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 402 SF 17.85 $7,176 Bracing and blocking joists 402 SF 5.00 $2,010 Replace porch decking, East side (Allow 50%) Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 402 SF 17.50 $7,035 Floor system inside building, part replacement 10% T&G flooring, 1x6 fixed over Diagnol sheathing 198 SF 25.00 $4,950 Diagnol sheathing, 1x6 fixed over framing 198 SF 10.00 $1,980 Floor joists, 4"x5-1/2" @ 24" o.c 198 SF 9.50 $1,881 floor beams/bearers, 2"x5-1/2" over posts 50 LF 12.50 $625 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $165,195 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior wall repairs Replace lower 3 rows of logs to perimeter walls, install 194 LF 64.00 $12,416 piecemeal so deconstruct is not required, crafting of new logs to match existing geometries and texture Replace additional 4' at ends of corner logs, staggered laps 256 LF 67.83 $17,364 splicing of new to existing logs Allow to re-secure walls/ stacked logs 194 LF 10.00 $1,940 Allow shoring for the work 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $36,720 ELEMENT - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 062 INTERIOR FINISHES Bathroom renovation New flooring 80 SF 30.00 $2,400 Floor base 33 LF 20.00 $660 Refinish existing wood flooring Finish wood floor with Tung oil 1,900 SF 3.80 $7,220 TOTAL - 062 INTERIOR FINISHES $10,280 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 081 PLUMBING Building Renovation/upgrades Equipment HWU 1 EA 3,250.00 $3,250 Instahot at Kitchen sink 1 EA 1,265.00 $1,265 Oven - Not required per City NIC Stove - Not required per City NIC Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 30 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Septic & potable water systems, Allowance 1 EA 60,000.00 $60,000 Fixtures WC with cistern 1 EA 775.00 $775 Lavatory with faucet 1 EA 640.00 $640 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 825.00 $825 Rough at fixtures WC 1 EA 420.00 $420 Lavatory 1 EA 750.00 $750 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 775.00 $775 Rough plumbing WC 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Lavatory 1 EA 2,800.00 $2,800 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Seismic bracing 6 EA 300.00 $1,800 Seal penetrations 6 EA 120.00 $720 Test and chlorinate water outlets 2 EA 275.00 $550 Filtration and potability tests 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 TOTAL - 081 PLUMBING $83,470 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 082 H.V.A.C. Kitchen renovation Replace kitchen flue 1 LS 1,800.00 $1,800 Stove vent, per city no stove NIC Hot water vent 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 TOTAL - 082 H.V.A.C.$3,300 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL Upgrade/ Renovation work Upgrade/ replace switchboard 1 EA 4,500.00 $4,500 Replace feeders to switchboard 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 Equipment connections 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 Light fixtures (Budget Allowance, as no design)1,980 SF 12.50 $24,750 Conduit and wiring 1,980 SF 5.00 $9,900 TOTAL - 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL $44,150 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 31 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EQUIPMENT 102 FURNISHINGS Kitchen renovation Base cabinet, plastic laminate 20 LF 374.23 $7,485 Countertop, plastic laminate with backsplash 20 LF 114.50 $2,290 Wall cabinet, plastic laminate 20 LF 280.30 $5,606 TOTAL - 102 FURNISHINGS $15,381 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building demolition Electrical demolition Remove existing Knob & Tube wiring 1,980 SF 1.40 $2,772 Exterior porch Remove porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 10.00 $5,590 Remove porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 7.50 $4,193 Remove porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 107 LF 9.50 $1,017 Exterior wall repairs Remove lower 3 rows of logs to perimeter walls (Per level)194 LF 25.00 $4,850 piecemeal method so deconstruct not required Replace additional 4' at ends of corner logs, staggered laps 256 LF 15.00 $3,840 Hazmat demolition Remove linoleum floor to Kitchen floor glue product 300 SF 7.50 $2,250 (Prior to renovating the cabin floor) On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $24,512 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS ADA Improvements, S.W Corner (#10 page 18) Site accessibility Grading to improve ADA accessibility 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 New hardscape pathway, ADA Compliant 1 LS 20,000.00 $20,000 Planting improvements 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $35,000 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 32 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Reconnections, Allowances only Reconnect electrical service to building 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Reconnect / re-run piping for water and sewer to building 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $25,000<-- DO NOT REMOVE THAT X Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 33 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $215,896 $109.04 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $215,896 $109.04 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$21,590 $10.90 SUBTOTAL $237,486 $119.94 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,750 $2.40 SUBTOTAL $242,235 $122.34 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,634 $1.84 TOTAL BUILDING COST $245,869 $124.18 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 34 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $215,896 $109.04 111 Site Preparation $215,896 $109.04 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $215,896 $109.04 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 35 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 2,633 SF 2.00 $5,267 Remove doors, single 6 EA 100.00 $600 Remove roof sheathing 2,633 SF 2.00 $5,267 Demolish wood framed structure 1,980 SF 20.00 $39,600 Demolish flooring (Building and Decking)3,840 SF 2.50 $9,600 Demolish sub floor framing with crawl space (Building and 3,840 SF 5.00 $19,200 Decking) Demolish concrete foundations to building (Minimal)3,840 SF 2.50 $9,600 Demolish stone and masonry fireplace 720 SF 25.00 $18,000 Demolish concrete foundations to fireplace 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Dispose stone and masonry Move out of building, hand 27 CY 150.00 $4,000 Load trucks 27 CY 40.00 $1,067 Haul debris 27 CY 50.00 $1,333 Dispose/recycle debris 27 CY 30.00 $800 Dispose concrete (Foundations) Load trucks 53 CY 75.00 $3,956 Haul debris 53 CY 50.00 $2,637 Dispose/recycle debris 53 CY 25.00 $1,319 Remove wood Load wood debris in trucks 293 CY 15.00 $4,400 Haul wood in trucks 293 CY 30.00 $8,800 Dispose 293 CY 15.00 $4,400 Hazmat demolition Hazmat monitoring and clearance 300 SF 5.00 $1,500 Remove linoleum floor to Kitchen floor glue product 300 SF 7.50 $2,250 (Prior to renovating the cabin floor) Biologist monitoring 1 LS 4,800.00 $4,800 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $215,896 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 36 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $56,128 $29.36 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $56,128 $29.36 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$5,613 $2.94 SUBTOTAL $61,741 $32.29 INSURANCE 2.00%$1,235 $0.65 SUBTOTAL $62,976 $32.94 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$945 $0.49 TOTAL BUILDING COST $63,920 $33.43 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 37 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $56,128 $29.36 111 Site Preparation $21,245 $11.11 112 Site Improvements $34,883 $18.24 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $56,128 $29.36 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 38 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Remove trees 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $21,245 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)400 LF 67.42 $26,968 Add for barbed wire outrigger 400 LF 7.42 $2,967 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $34,883 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 39 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 40 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $3,500 $1.83 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $41,380 $21.64 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $129,728 $67.85 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $174,608 $91.32 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$8,730 $4.57 SUBTOTAL $183,338 $95.89 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$18,334 $9.59 SUBTOTAL $201,672 $105.48 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,033 $2.11 SUBTOTAL $205,706 $107.59 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,086 $1.61 TOTAL BUILDING COST $208,791 $109.20 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 41 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $3,500 $1.83 031 Floor and Roof Construction $3,500 $1.83 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $41,380 $21.64 041 Exterior Walls $41,380 $21.64 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $129,728 $67.85 111 Site Preparation $129,728 $67.85 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $174,608 $91.32 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 42 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Roof repairs Repair shed roof along south 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $3,500 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building Close off doors, board up with plywood 112 SF 15.00 $1,680 Fill other miscellaneous openings and gaps 1,912 SF 2.50 $4,780 Rehab windows Repair window frames 80 LF 50.00 $4,000 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 80 LF 45.00 $3,600 Clear lexan view panel 258 SF 40.00 $10,320 Paint and seal window frames 80 LF 15.00 $1,200 Strengthening at exterior walls Wood bracing, 2x10 with screw fixings Interior face exterior wall (10 locations)300 LF 30.00 $9,000 Fix bracing, screw connections (4 points per location)10 EA 680.00 $6,800 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $41,380 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure - support from underneath Pressure treated wood box cribbing, 6x6 members Exterior, (av) 3' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(30EA)25 EA 1,080.00 $27,000 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 25 EA 420.00 $10,500 Interior, (av) 3' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(20EA)20 EA 1,080.00 $21,600 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 20 EA 420.00 $8,400 Building demolition Remove dilapidated shed 84 SF 22.50 $1,890 Hazmat demolition Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 43 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Hazmat monitoring and clearance 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 Remove wallboard for bracing walls, Hazmat 1,000 SF 4.50 $4,500 Collate and dispose material 1,000 SF 1.50 $1,500 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior to match doors 2,256 SF 3.60 $8,122 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Remove trees 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $129,728 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 44 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $53,644 $28.06 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $115,711 $60.52 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $78,956 $41.29 05 ROOFING $24,238 $12.68 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $3,060 $1.60 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL $83,470 $43.66 09 ELECTRICAL $42,960 $22.47 10 EQUIPMENT $7,690 $4.02 11 SITEWORK $125,210 $65.49 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $534,939 $279.78 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$26,747 $13.99 SUBTOTAL $561,686 $293.77 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$30,425 $15.91 SUBTOTAL $592,111 $309.68 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$59,211 $30.97 SUBTOTAL $651,322 $340.65 INSURANCE 2.00%$13,026 $6.81 SUBTOTAL $664,348 $347.46 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$9,965 $5.21 TOTAL BUILDING COST $674,313 $352.67 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 45 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $53,644 $28.06 011 Standard Foundations $53,644 $28.06 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $115,711 $60.52 031 Floor and Roof Construction $115,711 $60.52 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $78,956 $41.29 041 Exterior Walls $78,956 $41.29 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING $24,238 $12.68 051 Roofing $24,238 $12.68 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $3,060 $1.60 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes $3,060 $1.60 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL $83,470 $43.66 081 Plumbing $83,470 $43.66 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL $42,960 $22.47 091 Standard Electrical $42,960 $22.47 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT $7,690 $4.02 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings $7,690 $4.02 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $125,210 $65.49 111 Site Preparation $100,210 $52.41 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities $25,000 $13.08 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $534,939 $279.78 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 46 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) Perimeter footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (184 LF)20 CY 1,729.72 $35,363 Interior footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (40 LF)4 CY 1,729.72 $7,688 Spread/pad footings under posts, 2'x2'x2.5' deep (20 EA)7 CY 1,430.02 $10,593 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $53,644 ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor framing Replace crawl space posts, 4x4x N.E 4' high 20 EA 400.00 $8,000 Exterior cripple wall - see Exterior walls Flooring Replace missing/ damaged 1x6 floor planks (Provisional 50 sf)50 SF 22.50 $1,125 Steel frame clips to connect joists, girders and posts 20 EA 75.00 $1,500 Retrofit sister 2x8 joists ea side girders (double) @48" o.c 1,008 LF 25.00 $25,188 Premium to pre drill and screw sister joists (or bolt)1,008 LF 7.50 $7,556 Exterior cripple wall - see Exterior walls Strengthening structure at walls Shear wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Shear wall) Allow 100LF 800 SF 15.00 $12,000 Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 800 SF 4.60 $3,680 Plywood shear nailing 800 SF 1.50 $1,200 HDU's, hold downs bolted to sub structure framing 20 EA 150.00 $3,000 Seismic anchors below wall into foundations 20 EA 350.00 $7,000 Roof framing Retrofit x2 Ridge beams, span between rafters 117 LF 50.00 $5,850 Connect hardware ends of ridge beams 59 EA 115.00 $6,785 Blocking between rafters, exterior perimeter walls 236 LF 17.50 $4,130 Blocking between rafters, interior walls 153 LF 17.50 $2,678 Retrofit collar ties to supplement existing 59 EA 77.50 $4,534 Roofing replacement work Replace part rafters, 2x8 Rafters@ 2'o.c (Allowance, 20%)402 SF 29.50 $11,847 New roof sheathing, 5/8", pitched roof 2,008 SF 4.80 $9,638 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $115,711 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior walls Cripple wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Cripple wall)582 SF 15.00 $8,730 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 47 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 582 SF 4.60 $2,677 Sill/ bearer, 3x4 bolted to foundations, 24" o.c 200 LF 62.50 $12,500 New wood siding, 1x12 to match historical planks, cripple wall North elevation, N.E 3.5' high 224 SF 22.50 $5,040 East & West Elevation, N.E 2.5' high 230 SF 22.50 $5,175 South Elevation, N.E 2' high 128 SF 22.50 $2,880 HDU's, hold downs bolted to bearer, 4' o.c 50 EA 125.00 $6,250 Exterior wall cladding work Replace siding,1x12 salvaged old-growth redwood, Allowance 150 SF 35.00 $5,250 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Rehab windows Repair window frames 138 LF 50.00 $6,900 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 138 LF 45.00 $6,210 Replace glass to windows 146 SF 30.00 $4,380 Paint and seal window frames 138 LF 15.00 $2,070 Rehab doors, restore to working condition with repair and paint Exterior 4 EA 750.00 $3,000 Interior, rooms 4 EA 400.00 $1,600 Interior, cupboards 2 EA 250.00 $500 Paint exterior Exterior wood cladding, prepare and paint 2,448 SF 2.37 $5,794 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $78,956 ELEMENT - ROOFING 051 ROOFING Roof Replacement Asphalt shingles (standard strip shingles)1,912 SF 4.87 $9,317 Adhered membrane 1,912 SF 1.72 $3,282 Rigid insulation, 2"1,912 SF 2.77 $5,295 Flashings and roof plumbing Asphalt shingle ridge cap flashing 117 LF 6.39 $747 Asphalt shingle valley flashing 25 LF 5.88 $147 Metal eave edge flashing 147 LF 23.47 $3,450 Raked metal roof end flashing 85 LF 23.47 $2,000 TOTAL - 051 ROOFING $24,238 ELEMENT - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 062 INTERIOR FINISHES Bathroom renovation New flooring 80 SF 30.00 $2,400 Floor base 33 LF 20.00 $660 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 48 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST TOTAL - 062 INTERIOR FINISHES $3,060 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 081 PLUMBING Building Renovation/upgrades Equipment HWU 1 EA 3,250.00 $3,250 Instahot at Kitchen sink 1 EA 1,265.00 $1,265 Oven - Not required per City NIC Stove - Not required per City NIC Septic & potable water systems, Allowance 1 EA 60,000.00 $60,000 Fixtures WC with cistern 1 EA 775.00 $775 Lavatory with faucet 1 EA 640.00 $640 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 825.00 $825 Rough at fixtures WC 1 EA 420.00 $420 Lavatory 1 EA 750.00 $750 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 775.00 $775 Rough plumbing WC 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Lavatory 1 EA 2,800.00 $2,800 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Seismic bracing 6 EA 300.00 $1,800 Seal penetrations 6 EA 120.00 $720 Test and chlorinate water outlets 2 EA 275.00 $550 Filtration and potability tests 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 TOTAL - 081 PLUMBING $83,470 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL Upgrade/ Renovation work Upgrade/ replace switchboard 1 EA 4,500.00 $4,500 Replace feeders to swicthboard 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 Equipment connections 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 Light fixtures (Budget Allowance, as no design)1,912 SF 12.50 $23,900 Conduit and wiring 1,912 SF 5.00 $9,560 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 49 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST TOTAL - 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL $42,960 ELEMENT - EQUIPMENT 102 FURNISHINGS Kitchen renovation Base cabinet, plastic laminate 10 LF 374.23 $3,742 Countertop, plastic laminate with backsplash 10 LF 114.50 $1,145 Wall cabinet, plastic laminate 10 LF 280.30 $2,803 TOTAL - 102 FURNISHINGS $7,690 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Demolition, piecemeal at building Remove roof shingles 1,912 SF 2.60 $4,971 Remove roof underlayment 1,912 SF 1.20 $2,294 Remove wood siding to replace, Allowance 150 sf 150 SF 5.00 $750 Remove flashings and roof plumbing Asphalt shingle ridge cap flashing 117 LF 4.00 $468 Asphalt shingle valley flashing 25 LF 4.00 $100 Metal eave edge flashing 147 LF 6.00 $882 Raked metal roof end flashing 85 LF 6.50 $554 Sub floor framing repairs Remove crawl space posts, N.E 4' high 20 EA 390.00 $7,800 Remove sub floor exterior wall paneling 582 SF 12.50 $7,275 Flooring Remove missing/ damaged 1x6 floor planks (Provisional 50 sf)50 SF 10.00 $500 Building demolition Remove dilapidated shed 84 SF 22.50 $1,890 Roofing replacement work Remove damaged rafters, 2x8 Rafters @ 2' o.c, sloped (Allowance, 20%)402 SF 12.50 $5,020 Remove roof sheathing, 5/8", pitched roof 2,008 SF 2.40 $4,819 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 Replacement maternity roost 1 EA 1,500.00 $1,500 Hazmat demolition Set up - contain building 1 LS 2,560.00 $2,560 Hazmat monioring and clearance 2 DYS 2,400.00 $4,800 ACM vinyl flooring with ACM mastic 360 SF 8.71 $3,136 Dispose vinyl product 360 SF 2.00 $720 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 50 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Wallboard with joint compound 3,700 SF 4.50 $16,650 Dispose wallboard product with ACM joint compound 3,700 SF 1.50 $5,550 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $100,210 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Reconnections, Allowances only Reconnect electrical service to building 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Reconnect / correct piping into site to building 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $25,000<-- DO NOT REMOVE THAT X Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 51 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $204,845 $107.14 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $204,845 $107.14 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$20,485 $10.71 SUBTOTAL $225,330 $117.85 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,507 $2.36 SUBTOTAL $229,836 $120.21 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,448 $1.80 TOTAL BUILDING COST $233,284 $122.01 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 52 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $204,845 $107.14 111 Site Preparation $204,845 $107.14 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $204,845 $107.14 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 53 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Remove metal flashings 232 LF 5.00 $1,160 Remove exterior siding 2,472 SF 5.00 $12,360 Remove doors, single 12 EA 100.00 $1,200 Remove roof sheathing 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Demolish wood framed structure 1,912 SF 15.00 $28,680 Demolish flooring 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Demolish sub floor framing 1,912 SF 3.50 $6,692 Remove dead tree 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Remove large trees hanging over property 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Recycle wood Load wood debris in trucks 212 CY 25.00 $5,311 Haul wood in trucks 212 CY 50.00 $10,622 Dispose/recycle wood 212 CY 35.00 $7,436 Hazmat demolition Set up - contain building 1 LS 2,560.00 $2,560 Consultant monitoring, inspections and clearance 2 DYS 2,400.00 $4,800 ACM vinyl flooring with ACM mastic 360 SF 8.71 $3,136 Dispose vinyl product 360 SF 2.00 $720 Wallboard with joint compound 3,700 SF 4.50 $16,650 Dispose wallboard product with ACM joint compound 3,700 SF 0.75 $2,775 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 Biologist monitoring 1 LS 4,800.00 $4,800 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $204,845 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 54 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 2 LA HONDA CREEK WHITE BARN DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1 Attachment 3 LA HONDA CREEK WHITE BARN DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2 Attachment 3 LA HONDA CREEK WHITE BARN DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3 Attachment 3 LA HONDA CREEK WHITE BARN DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #4 Attachment 3 BEATTY HOME DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1 Attachment 4 BEATTY HOME DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2 Attachment 4 BEATTY HOME DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3 Attachment 4 BEATTY HOME DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #4 Attachment 4 April 6, 2020 Board Meeting 20-07 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Monday, April 6, 2020 The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via teleconference. DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 5:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Larry Hassett and Pete Siemens Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Senior Capital Project Manager Scott Reeves, Capital Projects Field Manager Bryan Apple, Land & Facilities Manager Michael Jurich, Visitor Services Manager Matt Andersen, Finance Manager Andrew Taylor, Human Resources Manager Candice Basnight President Holman announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District website. President Holman described the process and protocols for the meeting. Meeting 20-07 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted written comments into the record. Deniz Bolbol submitted written comments urging the Board to allow for live public comment during the virtual meetings. Ms. Bolbol provided the phone instructions for how live public comments are submitted to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hassett and Siemens absent) CONSENT CALENDAR President Holman pulled Item 5 from the Consent Calendar. Item 5 was heard before the Consent Calendar. Director Hassett joined the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Public comment opened at 5:12 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 5:12 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, except for Item 5. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent) 1. Approve February 26, 2020 and March 11, 2020 Minutes 2. Contract Amendment with Questa Engineering for additional geotechnical inspection services for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection project at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (R-20-28) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manger to execute a contract amendment with Questa Engineering for additional geotechnical inspection services for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project in the amount of $19,420, for an amended total contract amount not-to-exceed $67,310. 3. Contract Amendment with Questa Engineering to Complete the Second Phase of Work for the Phase II Trail Improvements at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-29) Meeting 20-07 Page 3 General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to amend the original contract of $225,000 with Questa Engineering by $415,400, bringing the base contract amount to $640,400 to complete the second phase of work (construction documents, permitting, construction administration, and as-builts) for the Phase II Trails at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $62,310 to be awarded, if necessary, to cover unforeseen conditions, for a grand total not-to-exceed contract amount of $702,710. 4. Resolution for funding from Santa Clara County for the Alpine Trail construction project in Coal Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-30) General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to apply for Stanford Recreation Mitigation Funding from Santa Clara County and, if successful, enter into a funding agreement. 5. Written Response to the Sierra Club-Loma Prieta Chapter Regarding Potential Pilot Programs for E-bikes on District Lands Director Holman reported that she had provided suggested edits to the letter to staff. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth displayed the revised letter on the screen. Director Riffle suggested describing the pilot program as a “potential” pilot program in paragraph four because the Board has not yet approved the pilot program. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to approve the revised written response to the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter regarding potential pilot programs for E-bikes on District lands. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent) 6. Report from the Bond Oversight Committee to the Board of Directors for the review period from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 (R-20-31) Committee Recommendation: The Bond Oversight Committee recommends that the Board of Directors accept this report. BOARD BUSINESS 7. Proclaim a Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and discuss District actions to address the Emergency (R-20-32) General Counsel Hilary Stevenson provided the staff presentation describing the legal basis for the proposed resolution proclaiming a local emergency and the contents of the proposed resolution. Proclaiming a local emergency is especially important due to the District’s role in providing an essential service during the shelter-in-place. The proposed resolution affirms the General Manager’s authority to act under current District policies and gives the General Manager broad authority to take action without Board approval in response to the rapidly changing dynamics of the current pandemic crisis. The General Manager will continue to report her Meeting 20-07 Page 4 actions to the Board of Directors as quickly as possible. The second proposed resolution acknowledges the importance of proving public access to open space and recognizes the need to protect the health and safety of District employees and preserve visitors. General Manager Ana Ruiz commented on the current public health emergency and the measures taken already in response to the pandemic, such as suspending group activities, closing restrooms, restricting roadside parking, only allowing for foot traffic on trails, etc. Ms. Ruiz commented on the value of open space to members of the public who are currently sheltering in place, especially those without nearby opportunities for open space. Ms. Ruiz reported she and other members of staff are communicating and coordinating with other agencies, such as cities, counties, and open space agencies, regarding keeping parks and open space locations open, including consultation with the public health officers and public health departments. The shelter in place orders recognize and acknowledge the need for open space, especially for those living in urbanized areas. Ms. Ruiz thanked District staff for their dedication and leadership and ability to adapt and respond to the crisis. Director Siemens joined the meeting at 5:27 p.m. Director Riffle inquired regarding the process for deciding whether to close District preserves or their parking lots. Ms. Ruiz reported staff is continuously monitoring and evaluating visitor levels to determine the most appropriate measures to take in response. Closing parking areas can be problematic because this will likely lead to visitors seeking street parking in nearby neighborhoods and negatively impact local neighborhoods in and around District preserves. Visitors would also be crossing the roads in unsafe locations if parking lots were closed yet trails remained open. Director Riffle inquired regarding the process for coordinating with the proposed ad hoc committee. Ms. Ruiz reported that she will reach out to the ad hoc Committee as soon as there is a need and would meet with as many members of the ad hoc committee as available. However, she will need to make timely decisions and act as necessitated by the issue. President Holman stated that the ad hoc committee would be a collaborative endeavor and sounding board for the General Manager to consider matters within the General Manager’s jurisdiction. Director Kersteen-Tucker requested regular updates on visitor levels to allow the ad hoc committee to provide timely recommendations. Ms. Ruiz reported the ad hoc committee would also have regular check-ins on at least a weekly basis. Additionally, she will update the Board of any changes by email. If full Board direction or action is needed, staff will call a special meeting, which only requires 24 hours notice. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the levels of available personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff. Meeting 20-07 Page 5 Ms. Ruiz reported the District currently has enough PPE and is also acquiring additional disposable masks, hand sanitizer, and cloth masks to restock the supply. Director Kishimoto inquired if staff levels in the preserves is sufficient. Assistant General Manager Brian Malone reported that field staff is at minimal levels for maintenance staff with only essential tasks being completed. Additional Land & Facilities staff may be brought on in the future to complete fuel reduction or additional essential projects. Rangers are deemed essential employees and are working but are not engaging in general public contacts. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding visitation levels. Mr. Malone reported daily visitation is elevated but has been lower on the weekends due to recent rains. Also, visitors are practicing better social distancing. Public comments opened at 6:06 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted written comments into the record. Brennon McKibbin, Field Employees Association President, stated support for the proposed emergency proclamation and in support of creating a COVID-19 Task Force to ensure the safety of District staff and the public. Mr. McKibbin reported that the Field Employees Association voted and are overwhelmingly in favor of closing the District preserves and parking areas in the interest of the health and safety of MROSD field personnel and public health. Taino Johnston urged the Board to close the District parking lots and encouraged the District to close all preserves because preserve visitors are not maintaining social distancing. Kristin Perry wrote in opposition to the proposed resolution to maintain open access to District lands as an objective stating that protecting the public and District employees should be the only objective. Ms. Perry stated the District should closed District preserves in order to reduce the number of medical and law enforcement incidents on District lands. Finally, Ms. Perry spoke in favor of reclassifying District Rangers as safety members under CalPERS. Andrew Verbrugge, Vice President for the Field Employees Association wrote in favor of providing benefits under California Labor Code 4850 to District rangers in the event they become ill from COVID-19. Public comments closed at 6:10 p.m. President Holman inquired regarding whether there has been an increase in emergency incidents in the preserves. Mr. Malone reported there has been an increase in incidents requiring ranger response and stated the increase in incidents is likely due to the increased visitation levels. Director Siemens stated the District provides an important outlet for the public, and the preserves should stay open. Director Siemens commended staff for their efforts to keep the preserves open. Meeting 20-07 Page 6 Director Siemens also spoke in support of the proposed ad hoc committee to support the General Manager. Director Kishimoto expressed support for keeping preserves open but shared concerns related to a potential surge in COVID-19 infections if visitors do not observe social distancing guidelines. Director Kishimoto spoke in support of receiving regular updates from the General Manager and the District Clerk. Director Kersteen-Tucker thanked staff for their efforts thus far in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and spoke in favor of the General Manager’s recommendations. Director Hassett shared his concerns regarding visitors’ ability to maintain social distancing based on his recent observations of full parking lots and street parking near District preserves. Director Riffle commented on the importance of keeping staff safe and thanked staff for working with public health officers to keep preserve visitors safe. President Holman commended staff for their work and inquired how staff is working with local jurisdictions regarding parking enforcement. Ms. Ruiz reported on recent high usage preserves that led to visitors parking along the roadside and reported local jurisdictions have been receptive to supporting roadside parking restrictions. Mr. Malone reported that District staff approached several jurisdictions to request roadside parking restrictions near preserves. President Holman announced her recommended appointments to the proposed ad hoc committee: herself as Board President, Director Riffle as Board Vice-President, and Director Kersteen- Tucker as a San Mateo County representative. President Holman inquired regarding potential temporary, moderated, or partial closures on busy weekends. Mr. Malone reported that partial closures during the day would likely be ineffective because visitors would likely wait for other visitors to leave and would block the parking lots and nearby roads. Director Kersteen-Tucker commented regarding the chat comments that meeting attendees submitted through the Zoom webinar portal. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported that these are not public comments submitted according to the process outlined on the public meeting notice and cannot be seen by the public. Director Hassett requested staff follow-up regarding the 4850 benefits mentioned by a public commenter and suggested this topic should be discussed by the ad hoc committee. Ms. Ruiz provided information regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act recently passed at the federal level and said she would send additional information to the Board. Meeting 20-07 Page 7 Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to: 1. Adopt a Resolution proclaiming a local Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2. Consent to the formation of a new COVID-19 Ad Hoc Committee, and authorize the Board President to appoint three Directors to serve on the Committee. 3. Adopt a Resolution affirming the important role of access to open space during the COVID- 19 Public Health Order while recognizing the need to protect the health and safety of District employees and Preserve visitors. 4. Direct the General Manager to keep the Board of Directors informed on a timely basis of significant changes made under this authorization and to forward public comments on a timely basis. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Bear Creek Redwoods Multi-Use Trail Alignment INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports No committee reports. B. Staff Reports District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced the Fair Political Practices Commission has moved the due date for the annual Form 700 from April 1 to June 1. C. Director Reports No director reports ADJOURNMENT President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:09 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk April 8, 2020 Board Meeting 20-08 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, April 8, 2020 The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via teleconference. DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Senior Resources Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Area Manager Craig Beckman President Holman announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District website. President Holman described the process and protocols for the meeting. 1. Study Session on the Proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (R-20-08) General Manager Ana Ruiz provided opening comments regarding the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program describing the work to date on the program, including public meetings, consultations Meeting 20-08 Page 2 with stakeholders, etc. The presentation will cover all work done to date and provide an opportunity to better understand the program and provide feedback. Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter provided an overview of the presentation and described the topics to be presented at the study session. Mr. Sifuentes-Winter introduced Jason Moghaddas of Spatial Informatics Group, which is one of the District’s consultants on the project. Mr. Moghaddas provided an overview of fire history and fire ecology in California. Mr. Moghaddas explained the three main drivers of fire in California, including topography, weather, and fuel and stated a majority of wildland fires are caused by humans. Finally, Mr. Moghaddas discussed changes over time throughout California related to vegetation, human settlements, etc., and their impacts on wildland fires. Area Manager Craig Beckman described current practices utilized by the District to prepare for fire season, including road repairs to keep roads open, vegetation clearance to maintain fuel breaks, conservation grazing for fuel reduction, and enforcement and patrol. Mr. Beckman described various causes of wildfire and how wildfires can spread. Finally, Mr. Beckman explained that District staff are trained in fire response and suppression techniques. Director Hassett inquired regarding the District’s use of disc lines rather than mowing because disc lines can lead to an increase in invasive species. Mr. Beckman explained disc lines are more effective in stopping fire spread than mowing. Staff also weighs the potential consequences versus potential benefits of the methods. Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of installing wildland fire monitoring cameras in District preserves. Mr. Beckman described the locations of several cameras throughout District preserves and reported that more cameras and partnership opportunities with fire agencies for camera installation are being pursued. Director Riffle commented on dead foliage resulting from sudden oak death and inquired how decisions are made to remove the fuel. Mr. Beckman reported field crews prioritize fuel removal that interfere with District roads and trails. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired how Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) reports their fire clearance activities and are accountable to the District. Mr. Beckman reported that state law holds PG&E accountable, but District staff works closely with PG&E to identify areas for clearance and PG&E has been responsive to District feedback. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired how the current COVID-19 pandemic has affected fire program activities. Meeting 20-08 Page 3 Mr. Beckman reported staff is still working through the details, but fire safety is considered an essential activity and is a high priority. Mr. Sifuentes-Winter displayed a timeline of and described the history of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program development. The goals and objectives of the program include establishing healthy, resilient fire-adapted ecosystems, reducing wildland fire risk, and facilitating fire suppression and emergency access. Mr. Sifuentes-Winter introduced Tania Treis of Panorama Environmental to review the District’s policies and recommended updates. Ms. Treis explained the purpose of the policy review and updates is to strengthen and augment current resource management policies to support the fire program goals. Ms. Treis summarized the various recommendations for the District’s policies, including types of treatment methods, increasing planning and regulatory support to streamline the work in an environmentally sensitive way, allowing for some visual changes to the landscape, monitoring and adaptive management of the program, and addressing post-fire restoration. Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reviewed each of the four plans included in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program: monitoring plan, vegetation management plan, prescribed fire plan, and pre-fire and advisor maps. The plans will assist with emergency response and proactive management of District lands. These documents are also provided to other agencies to describe the various resources available to them and areas to be protected, such as rare species or cultural sites. Finally, Mr. Sifuentes-Winter described the next steps for the program and the CEQA review process. Public comments opened at 6:41 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted written comments into the record. Don Bullard reported there are many grant opportunities offered to support fire management plans and programs. Mr. Bullard inquired why the District is not partnering with Woodside Fire Department for these opportunities. Denise Enea inquired regarding the low number of acres proposed for fire reduction stating others have larger scale projects. Glenn Fisher expressed concern regarding the amount of dead and downed wood on District preserves, which can present a fire hazard. Mr. Fisher supports controlled burns where possible and supported the proposed program encouraging the District to make fire resiliency a higher priority and complete the work sooner. Nikki Hanson encouraged the District to work more with county roadside crews to maintain roadside habitats related to increased flammable material, invasive weed encroachment, and degraded native plant populations. Ms. Hanson is in favor of creating a strategic roadside management plan to address these concerns. Public comments closed at 6:45 p.m. Meeting 20-08 Page 4 Director Siemens spoke in favor of fuel reduction stating it should be the District’s highest priority. Additionally, Director Siemens spoke in favor of installing surveillance cameras for spotting fires. Director Kersteen-Tucker expressed concern regarding the amount of work to be completed and inquired how Tier I priorities would be addressed quickly. Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported fuels management is currently handled under the integrated pest management program, and work is currently moving forward to allow the fuels management work to begin implementation in the fall. Director Kishimoto requested clarification regarding the fuel breaks and their visual impacts. Additionally, Director Kishimoto requested additional descriptions be added to the maps to described how the mapped areas will be treated. Ms. Treis reported the final environmental impact report will include visual examples of how the fuel breaks and fuel reduction areas will look and will include the requested information in the maps. President Holman suggested continuing the item to the following Board meeting agenda to address Board questions, such as camera monitoring, fire susceptibility of areas with sudden oak death, and the meaning of a changed landscape. President Holman inquired if the previous schedule could be met with the current shelter in place restrictions. Ms. Ruiz stated that if the Board supports the current recommendations, then the CEQA scoping meeting can move forward as planned. Staff can provide the requested information prior to that meeting. Director Riffle spoke in favor of moving forward with the current schedule of the scoping meeting. Director Kishimoto inquired if the fire program would significantly alter the District’s integrated pest management (IPM) program. Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported the methods and procedures are based on the IPM program and anticipates the percentage of herbicide use will be similar to the percentage used in the IPM program. Fuel management would largely be supported by manual and mechanical treatment methods. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of moving forward with the current schedule and requested staff respond to questions from the public. Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported the District has not yet applied for several grants because it is not eligible for these grants until the CEQA evaluation has been completed and approved. Additionally, the number of acres proposed for treatment is a large increase from the District’s current acreage treated, and he hopes it will meet the community’s current needs for fuel reduction. No Board action required. Meeting 20-08 Page 5 President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:12 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:22 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth, Planner Manager Jane Mark, Planner III Gretchen Laustsen, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Senior Capital Projects Manager Tanisha Werner ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced that no comments were submitted. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved, and President Holman seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 7-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:26 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced that no comments were submitted. Public comment closed at 7:26 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Claims Report Meeting 20-08 Page 6 BOARD BUSINESS 2. Bear Creek Stables Project Update and Funding Allocation (R-20-34) Planner III Gretchen Laustsen provided the staff presentation describing the history and location of the property and the Bear Creek Stables project. Ms. Laustsen described the proposed design and demolition plan and the new construction and repair plan outlining the various repairs proposed for the site, including the reduced length of the retaining wall, driveway repairs, paddock relocation, etc. Director Kishimoto requested clarification regarding the cost of the water system. Ms. Laustsen reported that the cost of the water system may be revised based on more advanced design development. The current estimate is approximately $800,000 and is expected to be reduced to reflect the reduced scope of work. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding public use of the site. Ms. Laustsen reported the existing site uses will continue under the existing use permit since any added uses would require a new use permit. Members of the public can access the site using the equestrian parking spaces. Ms. Ruiz stated that the two equestrian spaces on the site is the total number allowed because additional equestrian spaces would trigger a use permit and additional requirements. However, additional visitor and equestrian parking spaces are planned to be built north of the stable site as part of the overall Bear Creek Redwoods preserve plan. Director Riffle inquired about the size of the replacement paddocks, and President Holman inquired if the current paddocks could be relocated. Ms. Laustsen explained that the replacement paddocks are currently shown as placeholders and will be further refined in consultation with Santa Clara County. Additional limitations may be placed by the County based on site constraints or other limitations. Staff will learn more during the County’s pre-permit review process. In-place replacement of the existing paddocks is not feasible, but staff will be asking to relocate and replace in-kind. Finally, staff seeks to create a financially viable operation and hopes to avoid a reduction in the number of boarders. President Holman inquired if a composting operation on site would affect the proposed location of the manure pile. Ms. Laustsen reported a small amount of composting may be possible on site, but a large-scale composting effort is not feasible for the site. President Holman inquired regarding the repairs needed for the “old barn” and if regular maintenance would prevent later repairs from being needed, such as regular painting. Ms. Laustsen stated that the barn would be improved in a manner consistent with its character and will provide a more functional space for the permitted existing uses. Meeting 20-08 Page 7 Public comments opened at 8:11 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced that no comments were submitted. Public comments closed at 8:11 p.m. Ms. Laustsen reviewed the repair plan construction cost estimate and potential cost reductions by refining the project scope, updating the water system design, value engineering, etc. Additional funding from the available interest earned on Measure AA bonds is available to close the current funding gap, and staff recommends allocating $1.223M for the project. Finally, Ms. Laustsen reviewed next steps and tentative project schedule. Director Hassett inquired regarding the cost reductions to the project stating the costs will be incurred later. Ms. Laustsen confirmed that the initial first year construction costs are reduced, but other project elements will likely be implemented later. Director Hassett spoke about the importance of carefully selecting the future stable operator. Director Kersteen-Tucker requested clarification regarding Measure AA bond interest funding due to current financial uncertainties in the country. Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak reported on $2.5M in accumulated bond interest through June 30, 2020 that is available to fund Measure AA projects. Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of maximizing the public benefit of the site. Director Riffle spoke in favor of the General Manager’s recommendation and the need for equestrian facilities in Santa Clara County. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to allocate $1.223M of the available Interest on Measure AA Bond Proceeds to close the known funding gap to implement the Bear Creek Stables Project in fiscal year 2020-21. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 3. Select a design alternative for the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty House (R-20-35) Senior Capital Project Manager Tanisha Werner reviewed the project status and proposed design alternatives as well as the design standards and permitting agencies for the various structures. Design guidelines will be developed in accordance with the standards of the National Park Service, California State Parks, and Department of the Interior. Ms. Werner reviewed the condition assessment and various alternatives for the Redwood Cabin, including required actions for each design alternative. The Redwood Cabin is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Meeting 20-08 Page 8 Director Cyr inquired regarding the replacement of the bridge and culvert and whether these would be required for all alternatives. Ms. Werner reported improvements would be required for public and construction access regardless of the alternative selected. Assistant General Manager Brian Malone reported the culvert must be replaced for patrol and maintenance. If the demolition alternative is selected, then the bridge could be reinforced rather than replaced. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding proposed access and whether trail access would be nearby. Ms. Ruiz reported a loop trail is envisioned for this area to and from a small permit lot with additional access being provided further south. Director Kishimoto inquired if a permit would be required to allow the structure to be used as a hikers’ hut. Ms. Werner reported permits would be required from San Mateo County. Director Kishimoto requested clarification regarding access to the site. Mr. Malone reported the access road crosses through private property, which does not allow visitor use. Additionally, hiking access from Allen Road is currently not allowed because it would require hikers to pass through a closed area of the preserve. Director Siemens inquired regarding whether there are additional construction costs associated with Alternative 3 to make it a usable building, such as water system, septic tank, etc. Ms. Werner confirmed additional costs would be incurred if Alternative 3 is selected but does not have exact numbers at this point. President Holman inquired if CEQA review would be required for demolition due to the structure’s eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. General Counsel Hilary Stevenson confirmed that any decision resulting in a change in the environment would require a CEQA review, including demolition and rehabilitation. Planning Manager Jane Mark also reported the structure is eligible for the historic register, but the historic resource evaluation has not yet been completed. President Holman inquired if parking is required if the public accessed the site by hiking. Ms. Ruiz reported some parking requirements may still exist to provide ADA and emergency vehicle access but will depend on the use permit requirements. President Holman inquired if the District has sought out a partner or sponsor to support rehabilitation. Meeting 20-08 Page 9 Ms. Ruiz reported staff was waiting for Board direction before seeking a project partner. If a partnership is desired, the process would likely take a year to outreach, receive and review proposals, develop a partnership agreement, etc. Director Hassett commented on the current state of the structure and stated there are similar nearby structures that are in better condition. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of Alternatives 2 and 4. Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of Alternative 1 and 2 commenting on the significance of the building’s eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. Director Siemens spoke in favor of Alternatives 1 and 4 in order to minimize costs and due to the remoteness of the location. Director Riffle spoke in favor of Alternative 4, which will help minimize trespassing. President Holman commented on the District’s ownership of properties with structures and the need to be responsible owners of these structures, including performing regular maintenance. President Holman spoke in favor of Alternatives 2 and 3. Director Riffle commented on the likely difficulty in finding a partner to operate a retreat or hiker’s hut at the Redwood Cabin. Director Cyr spoke in support of Alternative 4 based on the District’s experience with fencing off structures, seeking partnerships to operate structures, etc., and stated that maintaining structures is not the District’s primary mission. Public comments opened at 8:44 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced that no comments were submitted. Public comments closed at 8:44 p.m. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to select Alternative 4 for the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin. ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-2-0 (Directors Holman and Kishimoto dissenting) Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to continue the item to April 22, 2020. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Meeting 20-08 Page 10 No Committee reports. B. Staff Reports Ms. Ruiz reported Santa Cruz County has closed all parks and trails from midnight April 9, 2020 through April 15, 2020. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. ADJOURNMENT President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 9:42 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 9:42 p.m. Director Riffle recused himself from participating in this potential transaction between POST and the District due to his employment with POST, which is categorized as a remote interest under California Government Code section 1091. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: Curt Riffle Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi, Planner III Elish Ryan Public comments opened at 9:42 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 9:42 p.m. 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 811 La Honda Road, San Gregorio, CA, San Mateo County, APNs 081-040- 010, 081-022-010, & 081-022-020 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Meeting 20-08 Page 11 Negotiating Party: Ben Wright, Director of Land Transactions, Peninsula Open Space Trust Under Negotiation: Terms and conditions ADJOURNMENT President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 10:30 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-09 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.08% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount 1899 EFT 04/03/2020 10343 - GRANITE ROCK COMPANY BCR Public Access Project/RW Bay Trail Connection Project thru 02/29/20 369,149.43 1888 EFT 04/03/2020 12111 - Agbayani Construction Corporation South Area Field Office Renovation Project 168,644.00 81089 Check 04/10/2020 *10845 - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW-FINANCE Jan-Mar 2020 Dispatch Services 57,450.00 81077 Check 04/03/2020 *10258 - HUNT LIVING TRUST April 2020 semi-annual interest 37,500.00 1935 EFT 04/10/2020 11944 - VAN DERMYDEN MADDUX LAW CORPORATION Legal Services - Jan - Feb 2020 21,717.04 1894 EFT 04/03/2020 *10214 - Delta Dental Dental Benefits - April 2020 17,285.73 1895 EFT 04/03/2020 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Plant Install. & Maint. of Multiple Mitigation Sites,- February 2020 17,229.00 1925 EFT 04/10/2020 11998 - Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation Impact Repairs (Rework) - Ravenswood Bay Trail 14,442.00 1914 EFT 04/03/2020 10099 - SAN FRANCISCO BAY BIRD OBSERVATORY American Badger and Burrowing Owl Habitat Suitability Study 13,600.04 81088 Check 04/10/2020 11379 - Caltrans Dept of Transportation Hwy 17 Wildlife Crossing CalTrans Co-Op Agreement 11,286.38 1893 EFT 04/03/2020 12106 - CSG Consultants, Inc.General Engineering Consulting Services 9,787.50 1930 EFT 04/10/2020 11303 - Santa Clara County FireSafe Council Los Trancos Eucalyptus Removal 10-1-19 - 2-29-20 9,229.09 1920 EFT 04/02/2020 11533 - NBC UNIVERSAL (KNTV/KSTS)PSA Announcements - COVD 2nd week 8,440.50 1929 EFT 04/10/2020 11533 - NBC UNIVERSAL (KNTV/KSTS)COVID PSA announements Apr 8-12 8,440.50 1919 EFT 04/03/2020 11665 - Waterways Consulting Alpine Road Trail Improvements- Design & Engineering 8,421.00 1934 EFT 04/10/2020 *10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 7,825.78 1904 EFT 04/03/2020 10419 - LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AD&D/Life/LTD April 2020 7,442.14 1905 EFT 04/03/2020 10190 - MetroMobile Communications Purchase Handheld Radios (3) for Rangers/Radio Antenna 7,383.43 81074 Check 04/03/2020 11420 - DOUG EDWARDS Mowing at Tunitas Creek 7,240.00 1922 EFT 04/10/2020 12109 - CHRISTINE SCULATI Grants Program Support 2/3/20 - 2/28/20 6,093.75 1931 EFT 04/10/2020 11948 - SEAN E. MCALLISTER Marbled Murrelet Surveys in La Honda OSP 6,021.00 81083 Check 04/03/2020 12061 - Sara Grove Pesticide Literature Review Jan - Mar 2020 6,000.00 1917 EFT 04/03/2020 10307 - The Sign Shop Mt. Umunhum Road Signage & Standard Operation Signs 4,828.17 1916 EFT 04/03/2020 11055 - Systems for Public Safety Background Check for Ranger Candidates 4,789.98 1928 EFT 04/10/2020 11617 - MIG, INC.La Honda Public Access Working Group Facilitation Services 4,777.65 81080 Check 04/03/2020 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.FFO BIT Inspections M221, M233, M213, T54/Axle Repairs M07 4,599.31 1902 EFT 04/03/2020 11492 - HAWK DESIGN & CONSULTING La Honda Creek Agricultural Workforce Housing Project 4,250.00 1927 EFT 04/10/2020 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.Alpine Rd. CEQA/Permit Support and LHC Loop Trail Permit Support 3,918.49 1923 EFT 04/10/2020 11748 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSULTING Consulting Services - March 2020 3,750.00 1908 EFT 04/03/2020 10925 - Papé Machinery Parts for Masticator/Parts & Filters T34/Maintenance M08 3,646.76 1889 EFT 04/03/2020 11430 - BioMaAS, Inc.On-Call Bio - Revised Task Order 1-MAMU Surveys PCR 3,542.28 81073 Check 04/03/2020 11520 - COMMUNITY INITIATIVES Latino Engagement with Latino Outdoors 3,500.00 81081 Check 04/03/2020 11565 - RGW EQUIPMENT Wacker Neuson Compactor Maintenance & Repair 3,332.83 1909 EFT 04/03/2020 10086 - PHYTOSPHERE RESEARCH Sudden Oak Death Research/Fungicide 3,240.95 1912 EFT 04/03/2020 *10211 - PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES Legislative Consulting and Lobbying Services 3,230.00 1892 EFT 04/03/2020 10022 - CONCERN Flat Quarterly Rate 1/01/2020 -03/31/2020 2,541.50 1921 EFT 04/10/2020 11799 - AZTEC LEASING, INC.Printer/copier leases - 6 machines - 3/1/20 through 3/31/20 2,326.07 81084 Check 04/03/2020 *11730 - STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY RV Basic /Supplemental Life - April 2020 2,288.02 1926 EFT 04/10/2020 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Programmatic Environmental Permitting thru February 2020 2,109.00 1911 EFT 04/03/2020 *10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS LLC Tower Rental Skeggs Point - April 2020 2,042.30 81069 Check 04/03/2020 11772 - AHERN RENTALS, INC.Equipment Rental - Mini Excavator (PuR) 2/7 - 3/6 2,018.39 1918 EFT 04/03/2020 *10213 - VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA Vision Premium - April 2020 1,481.06 1901 EFT 04/03/2020 11593 - H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Alma College Bat Relocation & Habitat Replacement 1,449.69 1890 EFT 04/03/2020 10616 - BKF ENGINEERS ADA Barrier Removal Project 1/27 - 2/23 1,401.00 Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors page 1 of 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-09 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.08% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors 1903 EFT 04/03/2020 10394 - INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRO Restock traffic cones/ Sign Supplies 1,366.17 1915 EFT 04/03/2020 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Base Rock for General Preserves 1,365.09 81082 Check 04/03/2020 *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (RSACP-EQ) 12/20/2020- 2/21/2020 1,319.90 1887 EFT 04/03/2020 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Septic Tank Service (SA-MT UM) (BCR)1,250.00 1898 EFT 04/03/2020 12099 - Full Court Press Communications, Inc.Media Training 1,250.00 1933 EFT 04/10/2020 10307 - The Sign Shop Mt. Umunhum Road Signage/Standard Signage 1,243.94 1932 EFT 04/10/2020 12117 - Signet Testing Laboratories, Inc.SAO Special Inspection Services 1,239.70 81072 Check 04/03/2020 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Maintenance (SA-MT UM)1,200.00 81070 Check 04/03/2020 11863 - ALBION ENVIRONMENTAL INC On-Call Archaeological - Task Order 2- Mud Lake Construction 1,081.39 1897 EFT 04/03/2020 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Torx & Bit Set, Gloves, Face Shields 854.06 1913 EFT 04/03/2020 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service T34 - Maintenance Service 840.00 1891 EFT 04/03/2020 10723 - Callander Associates Ravenswood Bay Trail - Professional Services thru 2/29/20 815.38 81075 Check 04/03/2020 10509 - GEOCON CONSULTANTS INC Bear Creek Dump Removal Planning 1/27/20 - 2/23/20 785.00 81076 Check 04/03/2020 11551 - GREEN TEAM OF SAN JOSE Garbage Service (RSACP) March 2020 775.97 81079 Check 04/03/2020 10189 - LIFE ASSIST First Aid Supplies - Gloves, Paramedic Shears, Hand Antiseptic 659.28 81071 Check 04/03/2020 *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service (FFO)514.88 1910 EFT 04/03/2020 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Lumber & Construction Materials (SA)478.62 1906 EFT 04/03/2020 10031 - Mills Design On-Call Design Services 450.00 1896 EFT 04/03/2020 10524 - ERGO WORKS Ergo Supplies -mice, keyboards 442.97 81091 Check 04/10/2020 10040 - GREAT PRINTING Spaces and Species Booklet Printing 438.47 81087 Check 04/03/2020 11852 - WESTERN EXTERMINATOR CO.Exterminator Service (RSA-Annex)426.50 81086 Check 04/03/2020 10338 - THE ED JONES CO INC Badges for Rangers 386.15 81090 Check 04/10/2020 11642 - Elias Khoury Insurance Costs 1/1/2020 - 6/30/2020 241.00 81092 Check 04/10/2020 10338 - THE ED JONES CO INC Supervising Ranger Badge - Carabetta 166.79 1886 EFT 04/03/2020 10357 - A-TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY Quarterly Fire Sprinkler Inspection (FFO)160.00 1924 EFT 04/10/2020 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Grappler Pickup Tool 157.16 1885 EFT 04/03/2020 12052 - 4984 EL Camino LLC A02/A03/A04 Base Tax Year Expense - April 2020 154.00 1900 EFT 04/03/2020 12088 - GSL Fine Lithographers Business Cards - Lin, Hugg, Skinner, Kahn 150.42 81085 Check 04/03/2020 10162 - TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER Pest Control for AO 89.00 1907 EFT 04/03/2020 10271 - ORLANDI TRAILER INC M213 - Pintle Ring & Mounting Hardware 76.44 81078 Check 04/03/2020 10774 - Langley Hill Quarry Skyline Ridge road work 74.56 910,144.60 *Annual Claims **Hawthorn Expenses A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HR = Human Resources P### = Patrol Vehicle SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods ISM = Invasive Species Management PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office CAO = Coastal Area Office LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge RR = Russian Ridge SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LT = Los Trancos RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill SR= Skyline Ridge ECdM = El Corte de Madera M### = Maintenance Vehicle RSA = Rancho San Antonio T### = Tractor or Trailer ES = El Sereno MB = Monte Bello RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek Abbreviations page 2 of 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-09 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.08% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors FFO = Foothills Field Office MR = Miramontes Ridge SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.OSP = Open Space Preserve SAO = South Area Outpost TW = Thornewood GP = General Preserve SAU = Mount Umunhum WH = Windy Hill page 3 of 3 R-20-40 Meeting 20-09 April 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract for Design Revisions and Construction Administration of the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with PGA Design, Inc., for design revisions and construction administration of the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $174,866. 2. Authorize an approximate 15% contingency of $26,250 for additional unanticipated project support through end of construction and project closeout, for a total contract amount not-to- exceed $201,116. SUMMARY The Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project (Project) addresses public safety issues while preserving important elements of the cultural landscape at the Alma site in Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve) to make the area publicly accessible as part of the Preserve Phase II trail improvements. In 2015, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) began working with PGA Design, Inc., (PGA) to develop a cultural landscape rehabilitation plan (R-15-68). In 2017, the District Board of Directors (Board) approved a PGA contract for design, engineering, and permitting services (R-17-86). The recommended contract provides funds to assist with the final phases of the project: permit design revisions and construction administration. Sufficient funds for the contract are included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2019-20 (FY20) budget. DISCUSSION On January 25, 2017, the Board approved implementation of the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan as part of the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan (R-17-15). The Rehabilitation Plan aims to implement a fiscally-sustainable site clean-up and rehabilitation of the Alma site that allows the site’s cultural significance to be understood and safely enjoyed by the public while remaining within the District’s mission. Original Contract In June 2017, the District entered into contract with PGA to provide design and engineering services, complete construction plans, and provide permitting support for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $590,008. Since 2017, the District and PGA have achieved many project accomplishments and completed the following scope items: R-20-40 Page 2 • Interpretive Plan, including two wayside exhibits and a self-guided Interpretive Walk implemented with the Phase I Preserve opening; • Documentation of Existing Structures; • Site Surveys, Environmental Site Assessment, and Remediation Workplan; • Modifications of the Carport into Bat Replacement Habitat; • Approval of a County of Santa Clara Landmark Alteration Permit; • Draft 100% Construction Documents; • Issuance of County building and demolition permit submittals; and • Award of Construction Contract for bat deterrents, abatement, and structure demolition (R-20-21). Through the design and permitting process, contingency funds were exhausted to complete the following unanticipated project requirements: • Additional Environmental Scope: o Hazardous materials testing in the mansion ruins, dormitory ruins and garage; o Exploration of existing underground storage tanks potentially located on site based on historic documents; o Additional analysis of asbestos-containing material samples; o Specifications for the remediation and removal of lead and asbestos; and o Health and safety plan update and a site management plan to address newly found hazardous materials. • Additional Engineering Scope: o Engineering and administrative guidance for the structural testing of retaining walls; o Engineering and design services for structural stabilization of mansion ruins; and o Unanticipated grading and drainage requirements. • Landmark Alteration Permit: o Attendance at additional site tours and Historical Heritage Commission (HHC) meetings; o Preparation for HHC presentations; and o Additional time and expenses related to the prolonged timeframe and starting and stopping for design during the Landmark Alteration Permit process. • Additional Interpretive Scope: o Development of the interpretive wayside exhibits. • Maintenance Plan: o Input and assistance in developing the maintenance plan. New Contract Scope A new contract is now necessary to complete the following work: Additional Design Work: In February 2018, PGA and MIG (the District’s on-call ADA consultant) recommended the use of the Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (AGODA) to address access to the Alma site. These guidelines are specifically intended for trails, camping areas, and other remote outdoor areas where terrain or other factors make compliance with ADA standards impractical. The plans were developed to 90% complete and submitted to the County of Santa Clara for building permits in July 2019. In October and R-20-40 Page 3 December 2019, the County communicated their preference for full ADA compliance. To assist the District with an evaluation of the potential cost and site impacts, PGA prepared concept sketches for a second public access alternative. The District is currently communicating with the County to determine whether full ADA compliance will be required. Construction Administration: The construction administration services include bidding support, site visits to review construction compliance with the design, teleconferences for project coordination, responses to Requests for Information (RFI) from the contractor, construction material submittal reviews, development of as-built drawings, and project closeout. FISCAL IMPACT The FY20 budget includes $945,854 for the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project (MAA21-006). There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures in the current fiscal year. Additional funds will be requested in the proposed FY21 budget to complete the contracted work. BCR - Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation MAA21-006 Prior Year Actuals FY20 Adopted FY21 Projected TOTAL Budget $1,025,218 $945,854 $4,629,416 $6,600,488 Spent-to-Date (as of 3/6/2020): ($1,025,218) ($86,053) $0 ($1,111,271) Encumbrances: $0 ($84,803) $0 ($84,803) PGA Base Contract: $0 ($50,000) ($124,866) ($174,866) PGA Contingency: $0 ($6,563) ($19,688) ($26,250) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $718,436 $4,484,862 $5,203,298 The following table outlines Measure AA Portfolio 21: Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects allocation, costs-to- date, projected future project expenditures and projected ending balance at the portfolio level. MAA21: Bear Creek Redwoods - Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects Portfolio Allocation: $17,478,000 Grant Income (through FY23): $3,741,424 Committed General Fund Capital (Fund 40) funds: $500,000 Board-approved allocation of available MAA interest earnings: 1,223,530 Total Portfolio Allocation: $22,942,954 Projected Project Expenditures (life of project): MAA21-001 Moody Gulch Fence & Gate Improvements $847 MAA21-002 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan ($14,369) MAA21-003 Bear Creek Redwoods Stables Water System $200,038 MAA21-004 Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation $5,334,890 MAA21-005 Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access $5,873,159 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation $6,600,488 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Invasive Weed Treatment $1,131,036 MAA21-008 Bear Creek Redwoods Ponds Restoration and Water Rights $712,619 R-20-40 Page 4 MAA21-009 Bear Creek Redwoods Webb Creek Bridge $487,492 MAA21-010 Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation $413,913 MAA21-011 Phase II Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP $2,395,000 MAA21-012 Bear Creek Redwood Tree Restoration $101,893 Total Portfolio Expenditures: $23,237,006 Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): ($294,052) BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Rehabilitation of the Alma site was guided by committee and public input at three meetings of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee, including one neighborhood meeting, held in Los Gatos on April 29, 2015. In addition, the full Board received a presentation of the Rehabilitation Plan at its June 24, 2015 meeting, and reviewed the information on March 23, 2016 and May 11, 2016. The Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan was approved by the Board as part of the larger Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan on January 25, 2017. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan was included in the Draft and Final EIR completed for the Preserve Plan, which was certified by the Board at the January 25, 2017 meeting (R-17-15). NEXT STEPS Following Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to execute the contract with PGA to provide design revisions and construction administration services for the Project. The project is scheduled to go out to Bid in June/July 2020 and construction will start as early as September of 2020. Responsible Department Head: Jason Lin, PE, Engineering and Construction Department Manager Prepared by: Scott Reeves, Senior Capital Project Manager R-20-41 Meeting 20-09 April 22, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Proposed purchase of the POST Gordon Ridge Property as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve, located at 811 La Honda Road, San Gregorio in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 081-040-010, 081-022-010, and 081-022-020). GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the POST Gordon Ridge Property and amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget accordingly. 3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, as set out in the staff report. 4. Withhold dedication of the property as public open space at this time. SUMMARY The General Manager recommends purchase of the 540.34-acre POST Gordon Ridge Property (Property) at a price of $9,165,000 as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. The appraised value of the Property is $12,600,000 and the net cost to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) would be $7,205,000, as POST has offered a discount of $3,435,000 and the District has secured a $1,960,000 grant from the California Natural Resources Agency. The following report provides a description of the Property, a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, findings of the environmental review, the purchase terms and conditions, and financial considerations. A budget adjustment/increase of $5,415,000 to the fiscal year 2019-20 (FY20) budget and a budget adjustment/increase of $1,960,000 to FY20 general fund capital revenue would be required to proceed with the acquisition. Sufficient budgetary savings have been identified in the amended FY20 budget to cover the cost of the acquisition. DISCUSSION The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) proposes to purchase the 540.34-acre Property consisting of three parcels that are all zoned Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development (PAD/CD). The larger 535.47-acre parcel (APN: 081-040-010) is located north of Highway 84 and is improved with a single-family home, barn, garage, horse paddock, cattle grazing R-20-41 Page 2 infrastructure, several sheds and is actively grazed. Two smaller parcels are located south of Highway 84 at 3.87-acres (APN: 081-022-010) with approximately 0.70-acres in active agricultural production that is leased to the adjacent farm operation, and an undeveloped 1.00-acre property (APN: 081-022-020) that consists mostly of San Gregorio Creek. A dirt driveway from Highway 84 and a network of ranch roads provide access to the largest parcel, and there are no formal roads on the two smaller parcels with the exception of the cultivated portion of the 3.87-acre parcel. This purchase advances land conservation opportunities in Vision Plan Portfolio #32 for additional Conservation Grazing and #39 for additional Watershed and Agricultural Preservation. The Property drains towards San Gregorio Creek and includes approximately 400 feet of San Gregorio Creek, a perennial stream that supports federally threatened Steelhead Trout and endangered Coho Salmon. On the Property, 535-acres are currently leased to a local coastal rancher for conservation grazing purposes. Property Description (see Attachment 2 - Location Map) The Property is located near the intersection of Highway 84 and Stage Road in San Gregorio. The District’s Toto Ranch area of Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve is located immediately to the north, and Peninsula Open Space Trust’s (POST) San Gregorio Farm property is located to the south. Highway 84 travels along the southern boundary of the larger 535.47-acre parcel, and Stage Road travels along the western boundary. An informal San Mateo County Roads parking area is located on the Property near the intersection of Stage Road and Highway 1, which provides an opportunity for possible future parking and trail access to the Property. County Roads uses the parking area infrequently for staging or storing materials. District staff will coordinate with County Roads on future use of the parking area. Private properties are located along the western and eastern boundaries of the Property. The Property is highly visible from Highway 1, Highway 84 and Stage Road, and is within the limits of the State’s Highway 1 Scenic Corridor. Land Use and Improvements The larger 535.47-acre parcel is located north of Highway 84 and improved with a single-family home, barn, garage, horse paddock, cattle grazing infrastructure, several sheds and access roads. The barn is approximately 5,500 square feet and was likely constructed circa 1870-1890. The single-family residence is approximately 942 square feet and contains two bedrooms and one bath and was likely constructed circa 1905-1915. The terrain on the larger parcel consists of sloping hills that increase in height along the northern property boundary to 800 feet in elevation along Gordon Ridge. The main improvements are located on a level area in the southwest corner of the property near the intersection of Highway 84 and Stage Road. Under POST’s ownership, a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) of the existing house and barn was completed by Page and Turnbull, a historic preservation consulting firm. The HRE concluded that the house, while more than 50 years old, is not of historical significance and is not eligible for listing as a historic resource. The barn appears to qualify for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under the Secretary of the Interior’s Criteria 1 (Events) for its contribution to the broad patterns of local history of the growth of farming and ranching in the San Gregorio area, Criteria 3 (Architecture) as an example of architecture typical of the area’s agricultural heritage, and as the structure retains integrity under the established standards. R-20-41 Page 3 The overall condition of the barn is good and is an integral component of the existing working ranch, as determined by the certified rangeland manager, current grazing tenant, the historic consultant, and District staff. There are no immediate maintenance or repair items that need to be addressed, but thorough inspections should occur at least every other year by District staff. The two smaller parcels totaling 4.87-acres (3.87-acres and 1.00-acre) are located south of Highway 84 and are mostly unimproved, with approximately 0.70 of the 3.87-acre parcel actively farmed under lease to the adjacent farm. The terrain on the two smaller parcels is mostly level with an elevation of approximately 40 feet above sea level. Habitat and Natural Resources Value The Property contains native vegetation types and includes sensitive and biologically-significant communities of Arroyo Willow and California annual grassland series, respectively. The remaining Property consists of coastal scrub over hillsides and one large stand of eucalyptus trees. The Property provides habitat for a number of larger animal species, including deer, coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions. A wide variety of small mammals, birds, and other species occupy or migrate through the general area. Observations of the California red-legged frog have occurred on nearby property. The Property supports aquatic linkage between upland habitat and the Pacific Ocean and is part of a terrestrial habitat patch of almost 9 square miles. Water Resources and Rights All of the Property drains to San Gregorio Creek. The San Gregorio Creek watershed supports spawning and nursery habitat for endangered Coho salmon and threatened Steelhead trout. The Property lies within the area of concern identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service as Tier 1a Lands: Core Focus Area for Coho Salmon Recovery (NMFS 2010 and CDFW 2012) and is in an area listed under the federal Clean Water Act as an impaired water body for sediment. Acquisition of property within this watershed will help support preservation of an important spawning and nursery habitat for both Coho salmon and Steelhead trout. The Property and its associated water rights are subject to the San Gregorio watershed water rights adjudication (1993). The adjudication identifies several springs and a pond not subject to the adjudication on the Property. Currently, the springs located on the Property provide all the water needed for the residential and grazing uses. The adjudication provides a creek diversion, identified as #225(2), on the mainstem of San Gregorio Creek that provides irrigation water to the small parcel south of Highway 84 and adjacent to the POST San Gregorio Farms property, as well as on the larger parcel north of Highway 84. This diversion point is co-located with the #225(1) on the POST San Gregorio Farms property. Further, diversion #225(2) also serves a parcel currently owned by POST called “Rising Acres”, reflecting the shared ownership of the parcels at the time of the adjudication in 1993. POST and the District are negotiating the division of the adjudicated allotment, which totals 100,900 gallons per day for irrigation, 900 gallons per day for stock water, and ~5,600 gallons per day for domestic use. Once POST and the District agree on a division of the water right, POST and the District will work with the Court-appointed water master, currently Stetson Engineers, to reflect this change. Farm Lease Approximately 0.70-acres of the 3.87-acre parcel located south of Highway 84 are leased for agricultural production to the adjacent farm operation on the San Gregorio Farms property. Blue House Farm runs their main farm operation on POST’s adjacent property. Blue House Farm R-20-41 Page 4 previously leased the 0.70-acres from the property owner prior to POST, and upon POST’s purchase of the Property in January 2020, POST entered into a new 5-year lease with Blue House Farm for the 0.70-acres. The annual rent under the lease is $100 per year, and Blue House Farm is required to submit an annual Agricultural Management Plan to the landowner for review. Per the District’s Coastal Service Plan, when acquiring lands in agricultural use, the acquisition shall be subject to the continued use by the operator until such time as it is sold or leased pursuant to the use and management plan adopted for the property. Under a District purchase, the 0.70-acre farm lease would be assigned to the District. Grazing Lease Approximately 535-acres of the larger 535.47-acre parcel located north of Highway 84 are currently leased to Pacheco Ranch for cattle grazing. The existing barn and surrounding yard are included in the lease. Pacheco Ranch has leased and run cattle on the Property since 2013. Finding the grasslands on the Property in good condition and the tenant’s general management practices and stocking rates appropriate for the site, POST entered into a new 5-year grazing lease (with one 5-year option to extend), modeled after the District’s standard grazing lease, with Pacheco Ranch for year-round rotational cattle grazing. The current Animal Unit Month (AUM) stocking rate in the lease is 482-units, which equates to approximately $7,615 in annual rent. Prior to entering into the lease, POST hired a certified rangeland manager to prepare a rangeland management plan for the Property to codify the general good practices in place on the grazed portions of the Property. The rangeland management plan guides grazing management decisions by establishing acceptable stocking rates when using livestock grazing for maintenance of native plant and animal communities, management of vegetation for fire protection, and invasive plant species control under a range of conditions, including drought. The rangeland management plan includes a grazing monitoring plan. It also recommends improvements to existing fencing, corrals, water infrastructure, and stock ponds. The rangeland management plan is incorporated into the grazing lease and governs the existing tenant’s management of the property. To date, POST has replaced approximately 20,000 linear feet of the perimeter fencing per the recommendations of the rangeland management plan. Per the District’s Coastal Service Plan, when acquiring lands in agricultural use, the acquisition shall be subject to the continued use by the operator until such time as it is sold or leased pursuant to the use and management plan adopted for the property. Under a District purchase, the 535-acre grazing lease would be assigned to the District. Recommended improvements contained in the rangeland management plan, such as improvements to water infrastructure and stock ponds, will require applicable permits, which may include Coastal Development permits, preparation of compliance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), regulatory agency approvals, of which costs would be included in future years’ operating budgets. Residential Lease The larger 535.47-acre parcel is also improved with a two-bedroom, one-bath residence that is currently vacant. Staff concludes that the best use of the Property’s existing house continues to be as a residence, preferably for a staff employee to provide a District presence in the general location. Under a District purchase, a qualified District staff member would move into the residence, under the District's standard employee lease agreement. R-20-41 Page 5 COASTAL ANNEXATION AREA SERVICE PLAN COMPLIANCE The Property is within the boundaries of the District’s Service Plan for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Area (Service Plan), adopted in June 2003. The Service Plan and subsequent conditions approved by the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) established policies and procedures for conducting the District’s Coastside Protection Program (Program). The Program guides the District’s coastal purchases, as well as the use and management of open space land within the Service Plan Area. The Service Plan requires solicitation of public input prior to the Board of Directors’ (Board) consideration of an acquisition. On April 1, 2020, the District notified nearby property owners in writing of the intent to acquire the Property and opportunities to provide comments. On April 7, 2020, the District’s Real Property Committee held a publicly-noticed meeting to review the proposed purchase (refer to section on Board Committee Review). The District’s coastal land purchases are subject to a Memorandum of Understanding between the San Mateo County Farm Bureau and the District. In accordance with the memorandum, District staff presented information and solicited comments on the proposed property purchase at a regularly scheduled Farm Bureau meeting on March 2, 2020. The Farm Bureau had questions regarding the ability for the District to transfer the 4.87-acres of land south of Highway 84 to a farmer and if the 535.47-acre property north of Highway 84 was a single parcel. District Staff responded that it was a possibility to transfer the 0.70-acre farm lease portion or all of the property south of Highway 84 to a farmer and that the 535.47-acre property is a separate legal parcel. USE AND MANAGEMENT Planning Considerations The Property consists of three parcels located in unincorporated San Mateo County. All parcels have a General Plan designation of Agricultural Rural with a zoning designation of Planned Agricultural Development/Coastal Development (PAD/CD). Current land uses consist of cattle grazing, pasturing, livestock staging, horse paddocks, farming and residential. Natural resource management, habitat preservation, agriculture, residential and low intensity recreation are allowable uses within the land use designation. On March 9, 2020, District staff presented the purchase to the San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Commission as an informational item. On March 25, 2020, the San Mateo County Planning Commission confirmed that the acquisition of the Property for open space and agricultural use complies with the County’s General Plan. If purchased, the Property will be incorporated into the Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve, and a Preliminary Use and Management Plan as set out in this report will be implemented. When undertaken, a future planning process would analyze opportunities for compatible public use. Further environmental review would be prepared as needed. Subsequent planning would be in accordance with the District’s Service Plan, including consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations. Williamson Act Considerations The 535.47-acre portion of the Property is subject to a Land Conservation Agreement between San Mateo County (County) and San Mateo County Title Company under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (also known as the Williamson Act), recorded in 1971 (Document R-20-41 Page 6 #85915AD). The Williamson Act Contract (Contract) is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and the County to maintain ongoing commercial agricultural use in exchange for a property tax reduction. The Contract provides for the compatible uses of open space and recreation. The Contract was non-renewed by the County on October 21, 2015 (Document #2015-111700), and the District is required to comply with the terms of the Contract until it terminates on December 31, 2024. Partnership Recognition POST and the California Natural Resources Agency will be recognized for a significant purchase price discount, grant funding, and for protection of the Property as open space. Recognition will comply with Board Policy 5.01 – Site Naming, Gift, and Special Recognition. Preliminary Use and Management Plan The Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) establishes a status quo land management approach in the interim between the purchase and the completion of a future long-term plan. The PUMP includes site security and maintenance of the Property in its existing uses as described below. The PUMP takes effect at the close of escrow and remains effective until changes warrant an amendment or development of a Preserve Master Plan to include this Property. If changes to land use or the physical environment were proposed in the future, the plan would be subject to further environmental review and public input. Name: Name the property as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. Dedication: Withhold dedication of the property as open space at this time. Coastal Service Plan: Operate and manage the property in compliance with the District’s Service Plan for the Coastal Annexation Area and the mitigation measures adopted pursuant to the Service Plan’s Environmental Impact Report. Public Access: Designate the Property as closed to public use at this time. Signs and Site Security: Install and maintain Preserve boundary and closed area signs where appropriate. Coordinate with County Roads on use of the parking area adjacent to Stage Road at the northwest end of the Property. Fences and Gates: Install and maintain gates and fencing as necessary to prevent unauthorized entry. Roads and Trails: Implement maintenance and minor erosion and sediment control measures for access roads and ranch roads in accordance with District’s adopted Resource Management Policies standards and regulatory permits. Patrol: Routinely patrol the Property. R-20-41 Page 7 Existing Leases Accept assignment of existing farm and grazing lease from POST. Structures Designate the existing house and garage as an employee residence. Routinely inspect and maintain residence as needed. Routinely inspect existing ranch structures as part of management of the assigned grazing lease. Inspect the barn every 2 years. Retain and preserve the existing barn under the assigned grazing lease as part of the working ranch. As the structure is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, any future significant repairs shall be in compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the State’s Historic Resource Building Code, and subject to CEQA. Williamson Act Contract Comply with existing Williamson Act Contract until contract is terminated in December 2024. Resource Management: Maintain the Property in its existing condition as grazing land, farmland and open space. Conduct plant and animal management activities consistent with the District’s adopted Resource Management Policies, Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual, Best Management Practices, and regulatory permits issued to the District as needed. Water Resources: Protect creeks, springs, ponds, and seeps on the property consistent with the District’s adopted Resource Management Policies, Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual, Best Management Practices, and regulatory permits issued to the District as needed. Recommended improvements to water resources will require applicable permits, which may include a Coastal Development permit, CEQA review, and/or other regulatory agency approvals. Water Rights: Continue to work with POST to divide adjudicated water rights at the point of diversion identified in the San Gregorio Creek Decree associated with the property. POST and District will complete the appropriate filings to formally divide the water rights. Wildfire Fuel Management: Implement standard District-wide fuel management and defensible space practices. Consult with San Mateo County Fire to develop a fuel management program and review potential water supplies as described in the approved 2019 Successor Fire Services Agreement. R-20-41 Page 8 Subsequent Planning Considerations: Any subsequent future infrastructure improvements, changes in land management leases, or public access planning will include consultation with appropriate agencies, organizations, and the community, including public workshops to gather input and review draft and final plans for future public access. When preferred plans are identified, the District will complete the necessary environmental assessment under CEQA at that time. Subsequent planning considerations shall include partner recognition and interpretive signs that recognize POST and the California Natural Resources Agency for their role in protection of the Property as open space as appropriate and in compliance with District policy. San Mateo County Local Coastal Program The Property is within the San Mateo County Coastal Zone. Consult with County Planning on all subsequent actions to ensure compliance with the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and Coastal Development (CD) permitting requirements. CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of the purchase of the 540.34-acre Property as an addition to the District’s open space preserve system and concurrent adoption of a PUMP that establishes a status quo land management approach to maintain the Property, with no expansion or changes to its existing uses of agricultural lands and natural habitat, in the interim between the purchase and the completion of a future long-term plan. Any minor erosion and sediment control measures and minor resource management activities implemented by the District or tenants as part of the PUMP will be conducted in accordance with the District’s approved 2012 Resource Management Policies and the mitigation measures adopted as part of the Resource Management Policies’ FEIR, and in accordance with applicable regulatory permits issued to the District. Any invasive species control will be conducted in accordance with the District’s 2014 adopted Integrated Pest Management Policies and Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual, Best Management Practices, and the mitigation measures adopted as part of the Integrated Pest Management Policies’ FEIR. An addendum to the FEIR was approved in 2019 to include additional species of concern and additional treatment methods. Recommended improvements identified in the rangeland management plan, such as improvements to water infrastructure and stock ponds, are not part of this project and will require subsequent environmental review for compliance with CEQA and regulatory agency approvals. The Property is within the boundaries of the District’s Service Plan for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Area. The Service Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), certified in 2004, incorporated policies, guidelines, and mitigations to ensure compatibility with the County General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. Actions proposed are to purchase and maintain the Property in its existing uses, and implement the PUMP to comply with the Service Plan and the Service Plan FEIR. R-20-41 Page 9 CEQA Determination The District concludes that the purchase of the POST Gordon Ridge Property and adoption of the PUMP is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 19, Sections 15301 and 15325 of the CEQA Guidelines: Section 15301 exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond the existing uses. The PUMP will maintain the Property as status quo with no expansion or changes to its existing uses as agricultural and open space lands, complying with the District’s adopted Resource Management Policies, Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual, Best Management Practices, and regulatory permits issued to the District as applicable, in the interim between the purchase and the completion of a future long-term plan. The PUMP includes minor erosion control work as necessary and minor natural resource management activities. Section 15325 (a) acquisition or transfer of ownership to preserve existing natural conditions, including plant and animal habitats, (b) acquisition or transfer of ownership to allow continued agricultural uses, and (f) acquisition or transfer of ownership to preserve open space. The proposed acquisition will transfer fee ownership of the Property to the District to ensure that these lands will be preserved in their existing natural condition, allow continued agricultural uses, preserve open space, and incorporate the Property into the District’s Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The 540.34-acre POST Gordon Ridge Property is being purchased at a bargain sale price of $9,165,000 ($16,961 per acre). The property has a fair market appraised value of $12,600,000 based upon an independent appraisal commissioned by the District. This equates to gift value of $3,435,000. In addition, the District is reimbursing POST up to $30,000 for preliminary site and structural evaluations conducted by POST. As part of this transaction, POST will assign the existing grazing and farm leases to the District. The Property would be purchased “as-is” and on an all-cash basis. The transaction would close escrow by June 30, 2020. At the November 13, 2019 meeting, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into a funding agreement with the California Natural Resource Agency (CNRA) for a $2,000,000 grant for the purchase of the Gordon Ridge property (R-19-135). After deducting a 2% administrative fee, $1,960,000 will be applied to the purchase of the 535.47-acre Gordon Ridge property north of Highway 84. This grant will be applied towards the bargain sale purchase price of $9,165,000 with the net cost to the District of $7,205,000. The CNRA requires the recording of a memorandum of unrecorded agreement to ensure that the portion of the property purchased with grant funds is used for purposes consistent with the grant scope. This funding agreement is compatible with the standard use and management of the District’s open space preserve system. The funding agreement only applies to the larger property on the north side of Highway 84 so that the District retains flexibility in the future if the Board later determines that the best way to manage the small farmland area of the Property south of the highway is to sell the 0.70-acre farm area to an agricultural buyer, consistent with Coastside Protection Program guidelines. R-20-41 Page 10 FISCAL IMPACT Through State Assembly Bill 74, $2,000,000 was allocated in the FY20 State budget for the purchase of the POST Gordon Ridge Property. The grant will be issued through the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), and after CNRA administration fees, a net amount of $1,960,000 will be available for the purchase. The acceptance of the grant was approved by the Board on November 13, 2019 (R-19-135). Staff is working to get the grant funds placed into escrow, but if this does not occur in time, the District would advance the funds and secure a subsequent reimbursement from CNRA. A budget amendment to increase the general fund capital revenue by $1,960,000 is recommended at this time if such an advance is required in order to mobilize quickly and complete the transaction. Reimbursement when then be expected in early FY21. Land acquisitions brought before the Board for approval include a budget adjustment/increase to the adopted budget. The FY20 amended budget includes $3,750,000 for the Gordon Ridge land acquisition. If approved, an amendment to increase the FY20 general fund capital budget by $5,415,000 is required to complete the acquisition in FY20 at the bargain sale purchase price of $9,165,000 and finalize the $1,960,000 net CNRA grant. Of note, the remaining 50% of the land acquisition was originally budgeted for FY21; sufficient budgetary savings have been identified in the FY20 amended budget to cover the remaining acquisition costs this fiscal year. The table below outlines the net acquisition cost to the District, followed by total land purchases to date in FY20. Fair Market Appraised Value – Gordon Ridge $12,600,000 POST Gift to the District ($3,435,000) Property Purchase Amount (incl. $5,000 Option Deposit) $9,165,000 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) Grant (less 2% fee) ($1,960,000) Net Cost to District $7,205,000 Coastside Protection Area Fiscal Considerations The POST Gordon Ridge Property is located within the service area of San Mateo County Fire. However, under the terms of the District/County Fire agreement, the District is not required to pay a County Fire fee when the District leases the property for a private agricultural or residential use, which is subject to a possessory interest tax. The use of the grassland areas of the larger 535.47-acre parcel (APN: 081-040-010) are leased to the existing grazing tenant, and the residence would be rented as an employee residence. In addition, the agricultural area on a portion of the 3.87-acre parcel (APN: 081-022-010) is leased to the existing agricultural tenant. Therefore, no County Fire fee is required for these two parcels. The District would pay a fee of $10.84 with a 2% annual increase for the undeveloped 1.00-acre parcel (APN: 081-022-020). The Property is not located within the service area of the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District; therefore, no fees are incurred under the School District Agreement as a result of the proposed purchase. The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. The Controller has reviewed and approved the proposed General Fund acquisition. R-20-41 Page 11 BOARD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The District’s Real Property Committee held a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020 to review information about the Property and receive public input on the proposed purchase. The District distributed a notice of the Real Property Committee meeting on April 1, 2020 to property owners located adjacent to or surrounding the subject property and interested parties. Staff provided a presentation of the Property, reviewed the purchase terms, and described how the Property would remain closed and managed as an extension of the surrounding Preserve. All members of the Real Property Committee attended the virtual meeting. No members of the public attended and no public comments were made. The Real Property Committee recommended forwarding the proposed purchase to the District Board of Directors in a vote of 3-0. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act, and a copy of this agenda was mailed to property owners of land located adjacent to or surrounding the Property, as well as the Coastside Protection Area mailing list. NEXT STEPS Upon approval, staff will continue to work towards securing the grant funds into escrow, and the General Manager will direct staff to proceed with the close of escrow for the purchase of the Property and implement the PUMP. The District’s Skyline Field Office will manage the Property as an addition to Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. Attachments: 1. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase and Sale Agreement, Authorizing the General Manager or Other Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute any and all Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve - Lands of POST) 2. Gordon Ridge Property Location Map Responsible Department Head: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Prepared by: Allen Ishibashi, Sr. Real Property Agent Elish Ryan, Planner III Graphics prepared by: Nathan Greig, Data Analyst II Francisco Tapia, GIS Technician Attachment 1 Resolutions/2020/20-___TabachnikPurchase 1 RESOLUTION 20-__ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL BUDGET, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER OR OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE AND GRANT TO DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (TUNITAS CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - LANDS OF PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST) The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION ONE. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) does hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement between Peninsula Open Space Trust, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of which purchase agreement is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President of the Board of Directors, General Manager, or other appropriate officer to execute the Agreement and all related transactional documents on behalf of the District to acquire the real property described therein (“the POST Gordon Ridge Property”). SECTION TWO. The Board authorizes the expenditure of $9,165,000.00 covering the purchase of the POST Gordon Ridge Property, including a deposit of $5,000.00. SECTION THREE. The Board approves an amendment to the Budget and Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2019-20 by increasing the General Fund Capital budget in the amount of $5,415,000.00. Except as herein modified, the FY2019-20 Budget and Action Plan, Resolution No. 19-15 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION FOUR. The Board approves an increase to the general fund capital projected revenue in the amount of $1,960,000 for the net distribution of the California Natural Resources Agency grant for the acquisition of the Gordon Ridge property. SECTION FIVE. The General Manager, President of the Board of Directors, or other appropriate officer is authorized to execute a Certificate of Acceptance and the Grant Deed on behalf of the District. SECTION SIX. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to provide notice of acceptance to the seller, execute all escrow documents and to extend escrow if necessary. SECTION SEVEN. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to expend up to $20,000.00 to cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, survey and miscellaneous costs related to this transaction. SECTION EIGHT. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve any technical revisions to the attached Agreement and documents, which do not Attachment 1 Resolutions/2020/20-___TabachnikPurchase 2 involve any material change to any term of the Agreement or documents, which are necessary or appropriate to the closing or implementation of this transaction. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ________, 2020, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Jed Cyr, Secretary Board of Directors Karen Holman, President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above day. Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk Gordon Ridge 4.87-acres Gordon Ridg e 535.47-acres P O S T G o r d o n R i d g e S A N G R E G O R I O Stag e R d Sta g e R d ÄÆ1 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ84 8 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 400 200 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 San Gregorio Cr e e k C o y o t e C r e ek M i d p en i n su la Re g i onal Op e n S p a ce D i st r i ct (M RO S D) Mar ch 2 0 2 0 Go rd on Ri dge Pr oper t y: Sa n G reg or io, CA Path: G:\Projects\Tunitas_Creek\CareyRanch\BoardPacket_20181205\TC_GordonRidge_BoardReport_20181207.mxd Created By: flopez 0 0.50.25 MilesI MROSD Preser ves Pr ivate Proper ty While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. St ag e R o a d U nm ain t ain ed Road G or d o n Ridge Proper ty Area of Detail ÄÆ35 ÄÆ82 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ92 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ280 Half Moon Bay Redwood City San Carlos Belmont East Palo Alto Los Altos Palo Alto Other Protected Lands Pe ni ns u la Open Space Trust No n -M ROSD Easement over Private