Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20030813 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 03-17 Regional Open ,'. ice ------------------- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 03-17 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 6:00 p.m. Wednesday,August 13,2003 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,California AGENDA* Please Note: 6:00 p.m. Closed Session Special Meeting Start Time 7:30 p.m. Regular Meeting Start Time 6:00 ROLL CALL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT—CLOSED SESSION The Closed Session will begin at 6:00 p.m. At the conclusion of the Closed Session,the Board will adjourn the Special Meeting Closed Session to the Regular Meeting,and,at the conclusion of the Regular Meeting, the Board may reconvene the Special Meeting Closed Session. 1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation,Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Name of Case—Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation,et a].v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV432548 2. Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)—one potential case 3. Conference with Real Property Nelzotiator—Government Code Section 54956.8 Real Property—Santa Clara County APN 510-27-007 Agency Negotiator—Tom Fischer,Land Protection Specialist Negotiating Party—P.and B.Hayes 4. Conference with Real Property Negotiator—Government Code Section 54956.8 Real Property L—Santa Clara County APN 562-09-027 Agency Negotiator—Michael C.Williams,Real Property Representative Negotiating Party—Steve Haymann 7:30* REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS —Public ADOPTION OF AGENDA—N.Hanko ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR—N. Hanko WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 # E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org web site: www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz - General Manager: L.Craig Britton Meeting 03-17 Page 2 *** ADOPTION OF MINUTES • May 28,2003 • June 25,2003 • July 9, 2003 BOARD BUSMSS 7:40* 1 Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project and Tentative Adoption of an Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve;Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),and Adopt the CEQA and De Minimis Findings as Set Out in Exhibit E of this Report; Tentatively Adopt the Use and Management Committee's Recommendation to Amend the Use and Management Plan for Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve for Demolition of the Former Hassler Health Home Waste Treatment Facility,Development of a Parking and Staging Area,and Construction of Three New Trails;Tentatively Adopt the Use and Management Committee's Recommendation to Expand the Off-Leash Dog Access Area as Discussed in this Report—D.Vu 8:00* 2 Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Saratoga Summit Trail Construction Project and Final Adoption of an Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for Long Ridge Open Space Preserve;Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),and Adopt the CEQA Findings and De Minimus Findings as Set Out in this Report;Amend the Use and Management Plan for Long Ridge Open Space Preserve for the Construction of the Saratoga Summit Trail,which will be Open to Hikers and Equestrians Only; Waive the Requirement for a Second and Final Reading of the Adoption of the Use and Management Plan Amendment Because of the Necessity to Construct and Complete this Project in Order to Secure Grant Funds by the May 2004 Deadline— S.Welaratna 8:10* 3 Authorization to Reject All Bids Received July 29, 2003 and Solicit New Bids for Construction of the Foothills Field Office Maintenance Shop Building Replacement at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve; Authorize Staff to Reject All Bids Received for Construction of the Maintenance Shop Building for the Foothills Field Office at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve; Authorize Staff to Solicit New Bids—C.Woodbury 8:15* 4 Approve the Reorganization of the Acquisition Department;Amend the Position Classification Plan, Eliminating the Real Property Representative Position and Approve the Filling of the Vacant Land Acquisition Manager Position and Corresponding Budgetary Increase—C.Britton 8:30* 5 Approve a Five Point Sal Increase to the Assistant General Manager Position and Amend the PP �'Y Position Classification and Compensation Plan to Reflect the New Salary Range—C. Britton 8:50* 6 Authorize Entering into an Agreement with Primary Consulting Services for Needed Staff Recruitments for an Amount Not to Exceed$30,000 to Conduct Five Staff Recruitments—S. Thielfoldt 9:05* 7 Adoption of Ordinance Permitting Scattering of Human and Animal Cremated Remains(Cremains) on District Lands;Adopt Ordinance No. 03-02 Allowing the Scattering of Legally Cremated Human and Animal Remains(Cremains)on District Property, Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7116;Direct Staff to Develop Procedures and Guidelines for Implementation of a Permit System Consistent with this Ordinance—G. Baillie Meeting 03-17 Page 3 *** 8 Authorization to Change District's Designation of Authorized Signatories for District General and Payroll Checking Accounts;Amend by Resolution Section 2.40 of the District's Rules of Procedure Adding the Land Acquisition Manager as an Approved"Financial Instrument Signatory;"Adopt the Attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Signatories for General Checking Account(Mid-Peninsula Bank);Adopt the Attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Signatories for Payroll Checking Account(Mid-Peninsula Bank); Adopt the Attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Financial Instrument Signatories of the District for Santa Clara County Accounts—S.Thielfoldt *** 9 Permit to Enter to United States Department of Agriculture(USDA)Natural Resources Conservation Services(NRCS)for Soil Sampling in Foothills,Fremont Older,Los Trancos,Monte Bello,Picchetti Ranch, Rancho San Antonio,and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves;Determine that the Proposed Actions are Categorically Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Based on Findings Contained in this Report;Authorize the General Manager to Execute the Attached Permit to Enter Allowing USDA MRCS Access to the Various Preserves for the Purpose of Soil Samplings to Update the Soil Survey of the Santa Clara County Area of the District—R.Harari- Kremer *** 10 Schedule a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors for Tuesday,August 19,2003 at 7:00 p.m. for the Purpose of Conducting a Closed Session Concerning the Annual Board Appointee Performance Evaluations for the General Manager,General Counsel, and Controller—C. Britton *** 11 Permit for United States Department of the Army to Enter the Former Almaden Air Force Station on Mt.Umunhum for Exploratory Testing and Monitoring at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve; Determine that the Proposed Actions are Categorically Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Based on Findings Contained in this Report,Authorize the General Manager to Execute the Attached Permit to Enter Allowing the United States Department of the Army(Army Corps of Engineers)Access to the Property to Test the Soil and Groundwater to Determine Whether Toxic Contamination is Present; Further,Authorize the General Manager to Approve Any Minor Corrections,or Grammatical or Technical Revisions to the Attached Permit to Enter Which Do Not Involve a Change to a Material Term, Subject to the Approval of the District General Counsel—S. Sommer *** 12 Authorization for General Manager to Approve Contracts Not to Exceed$25,000, Including Settlement of Claims, and Approval of Amendment to Board Resolution No. 99-45 to Conform to Current Board Contracting Policies;Approve the Attached Resolution Authorizing the General Manager to Approve Contracts Not to Exceed$25,000,Including Settlement of Claims; Amend Board Resolution No. 9945 to Conform to Current Board Contracting Policies—S. Schectman 9:15* INFORMATIONAL REPORTS—Brief reports or announcements concerning pertinent activities of District Directors and Staff. ** REVISED CLAIMS 9:30* AwouRNMENT * Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed.Agenda is subject to change of order. Meeting 03-17 Page 4 ** TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately,you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. *** All items on the consent calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,IF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,PLEASE CONTACT THE DISTRICT CLERK AT(650)691-1200. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE DISTRICT TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING. i pro rtamatio n Of Appreciation From the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District To Warren Phillips WHEREAS,the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula,Regional Open Space District appreciates and honors the work of the employees of the District; and WHEREAS, District Ranger Warren Phillips has been an employee of the District since September 15, 1986; and WHEREAS, Warren Phillips is recognized as a valuable member of the District's staff, and WHEREAS, Warren Phillips is the first District Ranger to retire from the District; and WHEREAS, Warren Phillips is much appreciated by his co-workers and colleagues for his knowledge and expertise, THEREFORE, 1,Nonette Hanko,President, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula,Regional Open Space District, do hereby recognize and extend our appreciation to Varren Vbillips; For his years of service and dedication to the protection of open space and to the constituents of the Midpeninsula.Regional Open Space District. ftocLAndED THis THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST,2003. Nonette Hanko President,Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � __ �� �' i I I Regional Open F 'Nce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 03-11 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 28, 2003 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING L ROLL CALL President Nonette Hanko called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Members Present: Jed Cyr, Mary Davey, Larry Hassett, Deane Little, Ken Nitz, Pete Siemens, and Nonette Hanko Members Absent: None Staff Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, John Escobar, Cathy Woodbury, and John Maciel II. CLOSED SESSION N. Hanko stated that the Board would adjourn to Closed Session to discuss Closed Session Agenda Items 1, 2, and 3. The Board recessed to Closed Session at 6:08 p.m. and the Closed Session commenced at 6:08 p.m. The Board concluded the Closed Session at 7:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING M. N. Hanko called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. She announced that the Board had discussed Closed Session Agenda Items in Closed Session and that no reportable actions had taken place, and that the Board would reconvene in Closed Session following the Regular Meeting to complete discussion of the Closed Session Agenda Items. Additional Staff Present: Lisa Zadek, Cindy Roessler, Mike Williams, Gordon Baillie, Tom Fischer, and Sandy Sommer IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—There were none. V. AGENDA ADOPTION OF G 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 O E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.orgi ®F Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz • Genera(Manager: L.Craig Britton Meeting 03-11 Page 2 Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the agenda. K. Nitz seconded and the motion passed 7 to 0. VL ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Staff answered questions regarding Claim#5828 (interpretation of tests at Moffett), and #5854 (Skyline vegetation classification study). K. Nitz removed Agenda Item 5, Authorization to Purchase Trailhead Signboards from Von Kohorn Signmakers. Inc. of Redwood City for Fiscal Year 2003-2004, Authorize the General Manager to Purchase Ten Trailhead Signboards from Von Kohom Kitzmiller Signmakers, Inc in an Amount Not to Exceed $27 000 for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including Agenda Item 3, Cancel the June 11, 2003 Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors and Schedule a Special Meeting on June 5. 2003: Approve Cancellation of the June 11, 2003 Regular Meeting;of the Board of Directors; Schedule a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors for June 5. 2003,Agenda Item 4,Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement with Bay Area Ridge Trail Council for Construction of a Parking and Staging Area at the Jacques Ridge Entrance to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve; Adopt the Attached Resolution Authorizing the General Manager to Execute a Construction Funding Agreement with the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council for Construction of a Parking and Staging;Area at the Jacques Ridge Entrance to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve; and Revised Claims 03-10. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. VIL SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY Resolution honoring Don Weden. N. Hanko read the resolution. Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board adopt Resolution No. 03-17, Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Honoring and Congratulating Don Weden Upon His Retirement from Santa Clara County. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. Don Weden talked about his relationship with the District and showed historical items. He presented a calendar he had designed for the District in 1976 and thanked the Board for honoring him. C. Britton added that Mr. Weden's retirement party would be June 11. Meeting 03-11 Page 3 VIIL BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1—Program Evaluation for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; Comment On and Accept Staff's Program Evaluation Report—(Report R-03-50). C. Britton introduced the item. Open Space Acquisition Department—M. Williams A. Acquisition, Funding, and Negotiation B. Property Management C. Land Protection Dennis Martin Road -M. Williams updated the Board noting that they have obtained 5 of the 9 quitclaims and would like to have obtained all nine before staff begins the next steps of the project. Page 8, item 3, Easement Monitoring-T. Fischer talked about the problem with the general public entering the preserve from this private property and creating illegal trails. The District has reached an agreement with the property owner allowing them to patrol on the property and access the area without hindrance. Property exchange with Hansen—T. Fischer said that is still in discussion. Page 4, item 4, financing measure—C. Britton explained that staff is looking at refunding of some of the past note issues. Picchetti Winery lease-M. Williams said staff hired an appraiser and are waiting for the tenant to provide information. He talked about the negotiations regarding use by the public. N. Hanko said there may come a time when a committee would be appointed to look at policies that have to do with additional public access provisions for docent tours and other things that were not included in the original lease. M. Williams said this matter has been discussed at the Acquisition and Property Management Committee meeting. Regarding the assigned lease, M. Williams said there are five years left on the term the tenant acquired. C. Britton said he thought it would probably take a year to negotiate. Open Space Planning Department—C. Woodbury A. Advance and Resource Planning B. Current Planning and Capital Improvements C. Woodbury noted that there had been a lot of work by the Board including 23 actions on planning items, three workshops, three Use and Management Committee meetings, and 13 Coastal Ad Hoc meetings. Meeting 03-11 Page 4 Item#3 page 12, El Corte de Madera Creek Road Assessment—C. Woodbury said the assessment is complete and has been turned in for review. She said the seismic upgrade for the Picchetti Winery building is not in the plan; the project needs an additional $90,000 before it is fully funded. Page 14, Virginia Mill Trail—C. Woodbury said staff is ready to obtain permits for the restoration. Lawrence Creek Bridge—C. Woodbury said the construction season is short. She said that staff does not necessarily need more people, it is more a matter of the process staff needs to go through. C. Britton added that on El Corte de Madera, the regional board process took some time and required staff to reassess all the roads. As a result, staff have been more deliberate and careful in the permitting process. Pulgas Ridge—C. Woodbury said this is part of the use and management planning process. The first meeting is this weekend. Page 16, Windy Hill improvements, lower meadow bypass—C. Woodbury said she did not know if staff would get the improvements constructed this year. Page 16, #2, Standard Details and Specifications Book—C. Woodbury said this is ongoing. ECDM work—C. Woodbury said some of the work has been folded in as part of the implementation plan to reduce sediment. She said everyone agrees that these are high priority projects. The preliminary plan says ten years. C. Britton said staff would not make a final agreement with the regional board until �' g it comes back to the Board. He added that 25-30%of the planning department's work comes through the door after the Action Plan is approved. He cited a letter wells Ravenswood as an example of this. regarding e s at p Standard details and specs for trails and road construction—C. Woodbury said part of the standards were developed working with the information provided by the consultant. J. Cyr commented that this provides the District with important information to justify how things are designed and built. Page 15, Long Ridge, comprehensive inventory of roads and trails—C. Woodbury said a number of projects were deferred until they take a comprehensive look at what they are doing there. C. Woodbury referred to the charts attached to the report which listed all the projects contained in the plan. i Meeting 03-11 Page 5 Operations Department—J. Maciel A. Field Operations B. Resource Management J. Maciel highlighted Field Operations. He said the initial draft of the Field Operations Manual is completed and is being reviewed. The department hired 7 people last year. J. Cyr commented that this fits in with an issue raised at a prior Board meeting relative to having policies anticipatory of need. He felt that if staff felt it was worth the time invested, it was well worth the process. J. Maciel said there were no sections on trail maintenance and construction. This manual is strictly for maintenance and patrol. The next task is to put together a crew handbook. D. Little asked if the Use and Management Committee could be kept in the loop about that. He was concerned regarding practices with regard to trail maintenance. Regarding legal review, S. Schectman said this is similar to a police manual. It is important in terms of risk management that the peace officer procedures meet current standards. Page 19 Item 3, Restoration and Mitigation of Off-trail Impacts of Public Use— J. Maciel said some trails have been closed and staff is monitoring the closed trails. Staff are working with natural structures. N. Hanko said she thought there should be stepped up enforcement efforts. Regarding the use of remote monitoring devices, J. Maciel said some simple counters are being used on a few of the trails. Page 21, handball court—J. Maciel said the Bay laurel tree is doing well. C. Roessler outlined the Resource Management key projects. Christmas tree farm restoration, 13 acres around Horseshoe Lake—C. Roessler said grading and tree removal would start this summer. Page 23, monitoring vegetation changes for feral pigs—C. Roessler said staff had not noticed much change. They do not have much comparison, and they have not measured adjacent areas. Staff did some seeding in the rooted areas several years ago. Discussion followed regarding burns. Page 25, wildlife surveys—C. Roessler said the information collected would be available to the Board. K. Nitz said he thought the District should spend additional moneyon this. C. Roessler said there would be more consultant dollars spent this p Year, and som egr aduate students are proposing some projects. She talked about the students from San Jose State who did work at Bear Creek Redwoods. I Meeting 03-11 Page 6 N. Hanko asked if students working on such projects could be honored at the volunteer event. D. Little liked the idea of working with well-qualified graduate students in the research arena and thought they might discuss an ongoing research program in which they might fund some research in this area. Page 25, #5, Creeks and Springs/Pond management—K. Nitz was concerned regarding sedimentation of Sausal Pond. Invasive plant consultant—C. Roessler referred to page 20#5, increase resource management staff hours. She said consultants' proposals are due June 9 and staff expects to come to the Board by the end of June. #7, redwood forest monitoring—C. Roessler said a monitoring program started at Bear Creek several years ago. It was not continued last year,but the San Jose State students are doing wildlife and plant biodiversity monitoring in that same area. It is not in this year's budget. Public Affairs Department—C. Britton A. General Public Information and Outreach B. Legislative, Funding and Organizational Relations C. Community Programs C. Britton highlighted the proposed projects. He said he did not think staff would get the good neighbor brochure drafted this year. N. Hanko commented on the guidelines and standards in the draft final service plan (for the Coastal Annexation). She thought this was an excellent good neighbor policy document. Page 28 #4, develop public affairs protocols and provide media and public communications training for all staff/interested Board members—J. Escobar talked about the protocols for public information officer emergency procedures that staff has been working on. Discussion followed regarding email policies. Web site- C. Britton said a volunteer had revamped the site. This volunteer is moving out of the area but he will still be working on this project. Page 29#11, Implement a new sustainable system to maintain the District's web site -J. Escobar talked about what staff is doing to maintain the system and gave examples of some of the improvements. Meeting 03-11 Page 7 i Page 33, Daniels Nature Center$12,000 grant—C. Britton said work is still going on there. J. Escobar said volunteers are looking at the design of the existing pond community display. Administration Department—C. Britton A. Administration B. Human Resources C. Legal Services C. Britton outlined the report and gave an update on the State budget crisis and its possible effect on the District's finances. S. Schectman reported on the Legal Services program. Thornewood quitclaims- S. Schectman said the legal staff is not involved in getting the quitclaims. Staff is waiting for the process to be completed so they can proceed with the quiet title. C. Britton talked about the problems involved in obtaining the quitclaims. L. Hassett expressed concern regarding the fact that people organized and came to the District and that the process is painfully slow. S. Schectman said they are trying to make the process voluntary, and think it is being well received. N. Hanko noted that the discussion on this item had taken one hour and forty-five minutes. Motion: L. Hassett moved that the Board accept the staff s program evaluation report. K. Nitz seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to o. B. Agenda Item No. 2- Authorization to Enter into Annual Service Agreements with HiTech Construction Management and Design. Inc.,and Strategic Construction Management to Provide Construction Management Services for Capital Improvement Projects in Fiscal Year 2003-2004, Authorize the General Manager to Execute an Annual Service Agreement with HiTech Construction Management and Design Inc of San Francisco to Provide Construction Management Services for Capital Improvement Projects in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 in an Amount Not to Exceed $58 000• Authorize the General Manager to Execute an Annual Service n z t Provide f Santa Cruz o Management o S i Agreement with Strategic Construction Services for Capital Improvement Projects in Fiscal ear Constructi on Management .p P 1 Y 2003-2004 in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000—&Report R-03-411. S. Sommer resented the staff report. P p N. Hanko said she assumed the budget committee looked at this proposal ro osal thoroughly. C. Britton referred to the report which stated an estimate of over $93,000 had been budgeted. S. Sommer said that by hiring a specialist it allows I Meeting 03-11 Page 8 staff to cover more ground and maximize their internal expertise so they can get on with other key projects. C. Britton talked about having a construction person on staff versus using a consultant. He thought it was an economical way to handle construction expediently. S. Sommer talked about the qualifications of the firms being considered. 9 g Board Members agreed that this kind of project ultimately pays for itself and that this was not a large amount to spend on what staff are trying to accomplish this year. C. Woodburysaid whether the projects et done depends on getting permits. P J g F g g Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute an annual service agreement with HiTech Construction Management and Design, Inc. of San Francisco to provide construction management services for capital improvement projects in fiscal year 2003-2004 in an amount not to exceed $63,000; and authorize the General Manager to execute an annual service agreement with Strategic Construction Management of Santa Cruz to provide construction management services for capital improvement projects in fiscal year 2003-2004 in an amount not to exceed $30,900. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. C. Agenda Item No. 5- Authorization to Purchase Trailhead Signboards from Von g $ Kohorn Signmakers, Inc. of Redwood City for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; Authorize the General Manager to Purchase Ten Trailhead Signboards from Von Kohorn $ :gn Kitzmiller Signmakers, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $27,000 for Fiscal Year 2003-2004—(Report ort R-03-53). K. Nitz said he thought the new signs were supposed to eliminate the condensation problem but he noticed one that had condensation in it. C. Woodbury ry said staff would check on that. She added that staff are ordering a different sign for the one at Windy Hill because the one there does not work well. L. Hassett said he thought the District had developed a good relationship with the previous vendor and hoped the consistency in the signs will continue with the other firm. C. Britton talked about the bid process and said he thought the process worked well. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to purchase ten trailhead signboards from Von Kohorn Kitzmiller Signmakers, Inc. of Redwood City in an amount not to exceed Meeting 03-11 Page 9 $27,000 for fiscal year 2003-2004. M. Davey seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS K. Nitz: 1. He had visited six parks in southern Utah. 2. There will be a Use and Management Committee meeting at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve at 9:30 a.m. Saturday. D. Little: 1. He had done lots of hiking and the wildflowers are beautiful. He had noticed quite a lot of a thistle along the trails at Rancho San Antonio. In addition, some sort of motorized vehicle has been using that trail. On the Bella Vista Trail, what looks like hundreds of star thistles are coming up where the trail work had been done. N. Hanko: 1. She asked for a report from the Acquisition and Property Management Committee. P. Siemens said initially they are looking at leases including antenna leases. 2. The Stanford matter is coming up on June 4 and she has been working with Supervisor Liz Kniss on language to protect the view shed. 3. She talked about a contact with the President of Wells Fargo Bank she had made during the luncheon prior to the Avenidas recognition event and the possibility of having checks with pictures of District land on them. C. Britton: 1. The FYIs contained a letter to the Santa Clara Valley Water District summing up an excellent meeting. He said C. Roessler is very highly thought of there. Also in the FYIs was a letter from the Town of Los Gatos to P. Siemens proposing to name a feature in the south end of the District. He said this matter will be brought to the LFPAC. 2. He had an offer from Bay Nature magazine for a free trial subscription. He said he thought the magazine was worth supporting. 3. The last of three tours with POST took place, and they were gracious hosts. Sixty staff members went and it was good for them to see what was going on the coast. 4. AB 1195 passed the Assembly and the first Senate hearing will be June 18. 5. He said the area of Rancho San Antonio called the"elephant ear" has been turned over to the County. There are three small pieces that will be turned over to the District. 6. He had read an article that indicated that global warming provides j an environment for invasive species. 7. The Avenidas celebration was a nice event and was proud of N. Hanko who was honored there. Regarding the coastal tours, J. Escobar added that he could not have done coordinated them without the help of Lisa Zadek. L. Zadek handed out copies of the Guide to Elected Officials in San Mateo County. J. Maciel: 1. The new ranger will start June 2. Warren Phillips will retire August 15. Interviews will begin soon for ranger and farm maintenance worker positions. 2. The grading contract starts June 16. He said by implementing the new grading standards, they will disturb more soil. Staff will have to go back and treat or mow the thistles. 3. New trail signs will soon be going up in Woodside. Meeting 03 11 Page 10 C. Woodbury reported that they had hired Steven Schur to fill the Planner H position. X. ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 p.m., the Regular meeting was adjourned. The Special Meeting Closed Session was reconvened at 10:10 p.m. and adjourned at 10:37 p.m., to discuss Agenda Items 1 and 2. Agenda Item 3 was not discussed during the Special Meeting Closed Session. No reportable action occurred. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary I Claims No. 03-10 Meeting 03-11 Date 05/28/03 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 5810 $12.66 Accent&Artech Lamination Supplies 5811 $705.96 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Service and Repairs 5812 $9779 Arbill Glove&Safety Product Field Supplies 5813 $335.11 AT&T Wireless Cellular Phone Service 5814 $390.32 Brim Tractor Company,Inc. Tractor Accessories 5815 $200.00 CA Dept.of Fish and Game Subscription 5816 $71.37 California Water Service Company Water Service 5817 $66.51 Chris's Dodge World Vehicle Supplies 5818 $126.91 Cole Supply Co.,Inc. Janitorial Supplies 5819 $392.50 *1 Costanoa Coastal Tour Meeting Expense 5820 $10.89 CSK Auto Vehicle Supplies 5821 $16,053.05 ## Dell Account Seven Computers&Accessories 5822 $50.00 *2 Don Weden's Retirement Retirement Party-J.Cyr&P.Siemens 5823 $140.41 Federal Express Express Mailing 5824 $71.21 Forestry Supplies,Inc. Field Supplies 5825 $410.61 Foster Brothers Locks&Key Duplications 5826 $145.60 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 5827 $297.00 General Graphics Exhibits Vinyl Text-Nature Center Panels 5828 $4,443.82 Geologica Consulting-Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area 5829 $2,500.00 George H.Miller Associates Appraisal Services 5830 $52.66 Granite Rock Company Base Rock-Alpine Pond Access Trail 5831 $2,883.89 H.T.Harvey&Associates Ecological Consultant-La Honda Creek OSP 5832 $145.94 Hagemeyer North America Field Supplies 5833 $315.00 *3 Half Moon Bay Review Legal Advertisement-FEIR 5834 $107.76 MCI Long Distance Telephone Service 5835 $1,202.66 MetroMobile Communications Radio Repairs&Maintenance 5836 $189.16 Noble Tractor,Inc. Tractor Supplies 5837 $159.50 Office Team Office Temporary Help-Front Desk 5838 $1,148.17 *4 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 5839 $46.93 Peninsula Digital Imaging Printing-Site Plans-Old Page Mill Trail Repair 5840 $210.56 Pringles Tractor Co. Tractor Supplies 5841 $23.45 Prodigy Communications Corp. Internet Connection-SFO 5842 $36.13 Rayne Water Conditioner Rental 5843 $271.27 Redwood General Tire Co.,Inc. Tire Repair&Tires 5844 $574.95 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 5845 $713.34 San Jose Mercury News Recruitment Advertisement 5846 $36.68 San Mateo Co.Public Health Lab. Tick Testing 5847 $325.60 Shell Credit Card Center Fuel 5848 $160.17 *5 Skyline County Water District Water Service 5849 $353.35 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 5850 $146.09 The Bicycle Outfitter Bicycle Tools&Parts 5851 $176.42 The Ed Jones Company Uniform 5852 $187.50 The Global Media Group,Inc. Recruitment Advertisement 5853 $710.89 Tires on the Go Vehicle Tires Page 1 of 2 Claims No. 03-10 Meeting 03-11 Date 05/28/03 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 5854 $1,370.00 WAC Corporation,Inc. Aerial Photos 5855 $120.00 West Group On-Line Legal Services 5856 $600.00 West Valley-Mission College Registration Fee-4WD Training 5857 $2,538.00 '6 Western Press&Mail Postage-FEIR Postcards 5858 $5,500.00 '7 Western Press&Mail Postage-2003 Annual Report 5859 $223.92 Williams,Mike Reimbursement-Mileage 5860 $110.89 Workingman's Emporium Uniforms Total $47,162.60 `1 Urgent Check Issued 5/19/03 '2 Urgent Check Issued 5/16/03 '3 Urgent Check Issued 5122/03 '4 Urgent Check issued 5/21/03 '5 Urgent Check Issued 5/19103 '6 Urgent Check Issued 5122103 '7 Urgent Check Issued 5/22103 ## Expenditure to Date Exceeds 10K But Not 25K Page 2 or 2 I Regional S., ace MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 03-14 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 25, 2003 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING I. ROLL CALL President Nonette Hanko called the meeting to order at 5:42 p.m. Members Present: Jed Cyr, Mary Davey, Ken Nitz, Pete Siemens, and Nonette Hanko Members Absent: Larry Hassett and Deane Little Staff Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, Mike Williams, John Escobar, Tom Trapp, Cathy Woodbury, Del Woods, and Tom Fischer H. CLOSED SESSION N. Hanko stated that the Board would adjourn to Closed Session to discuss Closed Session Agenda Items 1, 2, and 3. The Board recessed to Closed Session at 5:45 p.m. and the Closed Session commenced at 5:43 p.m. The Board concluded the Closed Session at 7:25 p.m. REGULAR MEETING M. N. Hanko called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. N. Hanko called for a rollcall Board Members Present: Jed Cyr, Mary Davey, Ken Nitz, Pete Siemens,Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, and Deane Little N. Hanko announced that the Board had discussed Closed Session Agenda Items 1, 2, and 3 in Closed Session and that no reportable actions had taken place. Additional Staff Present: John Maciel, Sally Thielfoldt, Ana Ruiz, Cindy Roessler, Gordon Baillie, and Sandy Sommer 330 Diste Circ le le . Los Altos CA 94022-1404 o Phone: 650-691-1200 c Fax: 650-691-0485 . E-mail: mrosdgopenspace.org * Web site: www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton Meeting 03-14 Page 2 IV. ORAL COMrVIUNICATIONS—There were none. V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board adopt the agenda. K. Nitz seconded and the motion passed 6 to 0. VI. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including minutes of the Special and Regular Meeting of May 14, 2003; Agenda Item 6, Authorization to Contract with Shoreline Printing for Printinf� Services for Fiscal Year 2003-2004, With an Option to Extend the Contract for Fiscal Year 2004-2005, Authorize the General Manager to Enter into a Contract for Printing Services with Shoreline Printing for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 for an Amount Not to Exceed $100,990 With an Option to Extend the Contract to Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Subject to Further Board Approval; Agenda Item 7, Authorization to Pay the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority(CJPIA) for the Primary Deposits for the 2003-2004 Liability Program and the 2003-2004 Workers' Compensation Program; Authorize Payment to CJPIA in the Amount of$78,803 for the 2003-2004 Liability Program Primary Deposit; Authorize Payment to CJPIA in the Amount of$80,038 for the 2003-2004 Workers' Compensation Program Primary Deposit; and Revised Claims 03-12. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. N. Hanko abstained on Claim#5980. VII. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1 —Authorization to Execute a Contract with Shelterbelt Builders, Inc., for Consulting Services to Study Additional Methods for Invasive Plant Management,, Determine that the Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEOA) as Set Out in this Report,• Authorize the General Manager to Execute a Contract with Shelterbelt P Builders, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $30,000 to Study Additional Methods for Invasive Plant Management—(Report R-03-60). C. Roessler presented the staff report and outlined major tasks. She added that some sites would probably have to be surveyed again in the spring. She said the consultant would provide information on each of the tasks and there would be an educational workshop with the Board as part of the contract. No brainstorming session on policies is scheduled. C. Roessler reviewed the schedule of qualifications of the consultants, including their experience, and talked about the staff of the company. Meeting 03-14 Page 3 Responding to concerns about the company being located in Berkeley, C. Roessler said it was important to work out a schedule with them. She added that some of the consultant's staff lives on Skyline and she did not think it would be a problem. C.Roessler informed the Board that it was not possible to survey 50,000 acres for $30,000. Staff needed to prioritize. She said staff would use the consultant's professional advice regarding priorities. C. Roessler said staff has a list of invasive plants, and some of it is by preserve. D. Little said he would like the District to think about committing more money next year to make sure staff can do an extensive survey. He talked about plants that he had not seen before that he had noticed during his hikes. He said he would like to tap into ranger, OST, and docent databases to keep track of what they see. C. Roessler explained the form that is currently used and how information is entered into the system. She said staff would be getting professional advice on setting priorities. She added that the project is on invasive plants only. Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) as set out in the staff report; and authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Shelterbelt Builders Inc., in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to develop an invasive plant management program including research of existing conditions, outline of relevant alternative control methods, and recommendations of overall long term strategy to meet the District's mission within available budget and labor resources. D. Little seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Little said he would like staff to think about what it would take next year to do an extensive survey. Vote: The motion passed 6 to 0. N. Hanko noted a letter received from Ruth Waldhauer talking about C. Roessler's work. C. Roessler said the consultant would make a presentation to the Board toward the end of summer. B. Agenda Item No. 2- Approval of Categorical Exemption for Revised Project and Authorization to Solicit Bids to Construct the Federal Emergency Management Aaengy (FEMA)-Funded Grabtown Gulch Trail Repairs at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve; Approve aCate-orical Exemption in accordance Meeting 03-14 Page 4 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Adopt the CEOA Findings as Set Out in this Report: Authorize Staff to Solicit Bids to Construct the FEMA-Funded Grabtown Gulch Trail Repairs at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve—(Report R-03-58� A. Ruiz presented the staff report. C. Britton referred to a letter from a woman who lives in Kings Mountain and her concerns regarding the funding of this when the schools are in such financial trouble. Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board approve a Categorical Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt the CEQA Findings as set out in the staff report; and authorize staff to solicit bids to construct the FEMA funded Grabtown Gulch Trail repairs at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. M. Davey seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Ruiz said the 6 ft. wide bridge is 45-46 feet long. S. Schectman said that it met the CEQA definition for a categorical exemption. A. Ruiz said notices were placed on signboards in the preserve. S. Schectman stated that there is no definition of what minor means but the examples in the guidelines of other projects that are considered to be minor accessory structures indicate that this would clearly fall within the scope of a project that they consider minor. A. Ruiz said the footings would be part concrete and part Styrofoam. The Styrofoam would be encased in concrete. Vote: The motion passed 7 to 0. C. Agenda Item No. 3-Proposed Lease and Property Management Agreement with Peninsula Open Space Trust for the Former One-Half Interest Hunt Property Located Adjacent to Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve(Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 544-35-009);Determine that the Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as Set Out in this Report: Authorize the General Manager to Sign the Lease and Management Agreement with Peninsula Open Space Trust and. Subject to Approval by the General Manager and General Counsel to Approve Minor Revisions to the Agreement Which do not pp g� Substantially Change any Material Terms of the Agreement: Tentatively Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan Recommendations Contained in this Report—(Report R-03-56) T. Fischer outlined staffs recommendations. Meeting 03-14 Page 5 T. Fischer agreed that this was sort of an odd parcel. He said the access road comes from Highway 17. C. Britton pointed out the reason it did not come to the District directly is that POST needs to hold it for two years because it was a gift. He added that T. Fischer got a call from a Brush Road neighbor regarding paying for use of the roadway. T. Fischer said they know who the other half-owner is and he is also the owner of the other parcels that straddle this property. He said they need to work with him. Regarding enforcement of the District's ordinances on the property, I Maciel said the District needs to work that out with the other property owner. S. Schectman said we are managing POST's half-interest, and we are allowed to enforce our ordinances on lands that we manage. C. Britton said the District has looked at partial ownerships in the past, and any partial interest holder can apparently do whatever they want as long as they are not interfering with the other owner's interest. T. Fischer said the other owners are very quiet people. Motion: I Cyr moved that the Board determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the staff report; authorize the General Manager to sign the Lease and Management Agreement with Peninsula Open Space Trust and, subject to approval by the General Manger and General Counsel, to approve minor revisions to the agreement which do not substantially change any material terms of the agreement; and tentatively adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan recommendations contained in the staff report. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. D. Agenda Item No. 4- Application to California State Coastal Conservancy's_San Francisco Bay Conservancy Grant Program for Assistance with Acquisition of the Presentation Center Property Addition to Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve: Determine that the Recommended Actions are Cate og rically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as Set Out in this Report; Adopt the Attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approvingthe he Application and Assurances for Grant Funds from the San Francisco Bay Conservancy Program for the Presentation Center Property Addition to Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve—(Report R-03- 61 . D. Woods showed pictures of the property and resented the staff report. C. p P P Y P P Britton showed where the Mellots parcel was located. D. Woods talked about the network of trails that surround Webb Creek and extend through the Mellots property continuing on toward Lexington. Meeting 03-14 Page 6 Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the staff report; adopt Resolution No. 03-22,Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving the Application and Assurances for Grant Funds from the California State Coastal Conservancy, Presentation Center Property Acquisition. I Cyr seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Woods answered questions regarding habitat protection. I Cyr suggested a correction to the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 1 of the report so that it would read, ". . . retreat and conference facility is located." Vote: The motion passed 7 to 0. E. Agenda Item No. 5- Authorization to Conduct a Controlled Burn at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve; Authorize the General Manager to Prepare for, and Conduct, a Controlled Burn at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve—(Report R- 03-61). I Maciel said the three District coordinators were C. Roessler, D. Sanguinetti, and G. Baillie. G. Baillie provided an overview of the project and a history of burns during the last couple of years. He said the size and location of the burn were a joint logistics decision with CDF. C. Roessler said she would research whether Harding grass is hallucinogenic. G. Baillie said the City of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County fire crews were both at the Rancho de Guadalupe fire. C. Roessler said that whether burning kills the seeds that have already fallen depended on the kind of burn and the seed. She talked about follow-up treatment. Regarding whether there are fire poppies in that area, C. Roessler asked for more information on the plant. She said the burn is primarily for Harding grass. She said Harding grass does not just spread by seed but also by rhizomes. She talked about the results of an experiment at Pulgas Ridge where staff mowed Harding grass then sprayed with herbicides. G. Baillie said he thought that next year staff would probably go back to the south end and re-burn there. Meeting 03-14 Page 7 J. Maciel said that that the permit with CDF only acknowledges the proposed burn area. In order to expand the burn area, staff will need to put in a project scope. G. Baillie added that Board Members would be welcome to observe the burn. Motion: D. Little moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to prepare for, and conduct, a controlled burn at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. L. Hassett seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS P. Siemens attended Don Weden's retirement party. He said J. Cyr read the District's resolution. He talked to Jim Beall who said he would run for an Assembly seat. J. Cyr: 1. He said the Weden retirement was a wonderful event. 2. The City Council of Sunnyvale will take up a proclamation regarding the coastal annexation. L. Hassett: 1. He said the Board met June 5, the EIR was certified on the 6a`, and he signed papers for the purchase of Ocean Shore Hardware on the Oh. He talked about the store clientele which included members of PMAC. 2. He had a call from the Trues and he met with them at Russian Ridge. C. Britton said they have replaced the photographs they were talking about. 3. Woodside has their resolution scheduled for July 8. 3. July 4 is Bill Cook's barbecue. M. Davey: 1. She was going to a conservation easement workshop in Woodside. 2. She was going on a hike with Paul Billig, one of the District's volunteers. 3. She talked about D. Weden's retirement party and said that many conservation groups have asked him to serve on their boards. 4. She announced that at the Hidden Villa annual meeting, they honored Joan Baez, Paul and Liz Nyberg, William S. Johnson, and Terri Lobdell. 5. The Board of Supervisors passed the Stanford land open space usage, and they were all disappointed on several issues. K. Nitz had attended the Special Districts Forum and thought it was great. D. Little: 1. He also attended the Special Districts Forum and thought it was an excellent conference. 2. He had noticed that Italian thistle along g trail edges is infested with beetle and fly larva. 3. He had noticed that at Monte Bello, 50 percent of bikers are not wearing helmets. He had talked to one biker. 4. He said he was trying to learn native and non-native plants and had pictures of some he had questions about. N. Hanko: 1. She reported on the Stanford land matter. She talked about the comments of the District Supervisor and follow-up regarding the gateway ordinance. 2. She had received a letter from Gil Anda regarding the annexation. She asked staff to reply. 3. She was putting together a scrapbook of the conference. She said it was very good. She talked about the people she met there. 4. She encouraged Board members to attend the Meeting 03-14 Page 8 Bill Cook July 4 barbecue. She had a letter from Bill Cook regarding his support for the annexation. C. Britton: 1. He said he thought the networking was excellent at the Special Districts conference. He talked about a District in Victoria and their biking policies. He had packets for next year's event. 2. He passed out a brochure that was handed out at the Filoli event regarding oaks within the District boundaries. 3. The clippings contained an item about the Presentation Center from their brochure with a picture of T. Fischer and M. Williams. 4. He talked about a clipping from the Mercury News. 5. There will be a Use and Management Committee meeting at 5:00 P.M. tomorrow. 6. The FYIs contained a letter from the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council suggesting dates for dedication of the trail from Lexington to Almaden Quicksilver Park. 7. He reported on the progress of the District book and said he would read the draft text to look at details and history. S. Thielfoldt gave an update on training including Access data base and the building's alarm system. J. Escobar: 1. On June 5 and 7, staff did a user survey at ECDM, and they will be supplying the Board with a summary. 2. He said he had been offered and had accepted a position with East Bay Regional Parks. July 25 would be his last day with the District. C. Britton commented on others who have left the District and gone to other agencies. He wished J. Escobar the best. IX. ADJOURNMENT At 9:22 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. At 9:30 p.m., the Board returned to Closed Session to complete discussion of Closed Session Agenda Items 1, 2, and 3 and the Special Meeting concluded at 10:11 p.m. No reportable action was taken. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary Claims No. 03-11 Meeting 03-14 Date 06/25/03 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 5884 $26,181.63 2M Associates Coastal Annexation Consultant Study 5885 $86.85 Accent&Artech Lamination Supplies 5886 $358.26 Acme&Sons Sanitation Sanitation Services 5887 $800.00 Aerial Information Systems,Inc. Vegetation Map-Puigas Ridge 5888 $1,186.80 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Service and Repairs 5889 $500.09 ANG Newspapers Legal Advertisement-EIR 5890 $3,000.00 Appraisal Research Corporation Appraisal Services 5891 $168.37 Arne'Sign&Decal Co,Inc. Signs 5892 $19.64 AT&T Telephone Service 5893 $334.00 Bill's Towing&Recovery Tow Truck Fees 5894 $122.49 Browning-Ferris Industries Garbage Service 5895 $2,318.25 *1 CA Dept.of Fish and Game 3 Permit Application Fees 5896 $78,803.00 ### California JPIA Liability/Environmental Insurance-Primary Deposit 5897 $80,038.00 ### California JPIA Workers'Compensation Insurance-Primary Deposit 5898 $215.22 California Water Service Company Water Service 5899 $35.25 Chris's Dodge World,Inc. Vehicle Supplies 5900 $24.00 City of Los Altos Alarm Permit Application Fee-Admin.Office 5901 $159.46 Cole Supply Co.,Inc. Janitorial Supplies 5902 $4,013.92 Columbia Printing Maps&Envelopes Printing Services 5903 $141.26 Continuing Education of the Bar CEQA Book Update 5904 $548.55 *2 Costco Supplies 5905 $635.50 Cougar Couriers Document Courier Service 5906 $100.00 County of San Mateo GIS Data Reproduction Fee 5907 $875.00 *3 County of San Mateo-Clerk/Recorder's Notice of Determination Fee-FEIR Office 5908 $25.00 *4 County of Santa Clara-County Filing Fee-Coastal Annexation Clerk/Recorder 5909 $30.84 CSK Auto Vehicle Supplies 5910 $542.00 Cumming Henderson Tire Services 5911 $250.00 D&J Rooter Septic Tank Services-Silva Property 5912 $875.00 Del Rey Building Maintenance Annual Blinds&Windows Cleaning 5913 $55.40 *5 Dittmer's Gourmet Local Business Meeting 5914 $35.20 Downing,Brendan Reimbursement-Uniform 5915 $136.00 Emergency Vehicle Systems Equipment Repairs 5916 $30.48 Firestone Tire&Service Tire Services 5917 $4,834.79 FireWise 2000,Inc. Consulting Services-Wildland Fire Analysis 5918 $325.54 Freyer&Laureta,Inc. Consulting Services-Old Page Mill Road 5919 $37.10 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 5920 $121.28 Galls incorporated First Aid Supplies 5921 $1,595.47 Gardenland Power Equipment Field Supplies&Equipment 5922 $6,152.50 Gary Ifland&Associates,Inc. Surveyor Services 5923 $24.50 General Graphics Exhibits Vinyl Text-Nature Center Panels 5924 $138.28 Grainger,Inc. Field Supplies 5925 $192.96 Granite Rock Company Base Rock-Windy Hill Parking Lot 5926 $858.92 Great! Printing Services-Docent Newsletters&Post Cards 5927 $116.11 Green Waste Recovery,Inc. Garbage Services 5928 $551.25 H.T.Harvey&Associates Bat Survey-Skyline-A Frame Employee Residence 5929 $543.97 Hertz Equipment Rental Equipment Rental 5930 $2,520.00 Hitech Construction Management& Construction Management Service-FFO Shop Building Design 5931 $56.74 *6 Home Depot,Inc. Field Supplies&Equipment Page 1 of 4 Claims No. 03'11 Meeting 03-14 � - Date 06/25/03 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 5932 $2.250.00 |EDA, |nn. Consulting Services-LabmRalahona 5933 $2.305.73 |nduff|nco,p`naed Fumitune-EngoChois 5934 $645.30 ~7 Just Ergonomics,Inc. EmgnomirEquipmem 5835 $535.91 Just Ergonomics,Inc. EmQnominEquipment 5938 $1.150.00 Kevin Emery Builder Painting Services'Saratoga Gap 5937 $5.270.00 KixmyPoxt Control,Inc. Termite Fumigation'SheriUProperty 5930 $2.048.32 xinxn'o pmnUngGomiooa-BR&Rv|amdDooumentn 5939 $14.84 Kwix Key Lock&Safe Co.Inc. weyDvpoc000ns 5940 $74.74 Lab Safety Supply Field Supplies 5341 $65.79 Langley Hill Quarry Trail Restoration Material 5842 *66125 Los Altos Garbage Co. Refuse Services 5943 $1.962.58 MI Metal Fabrication,Inc. Brochure Boxes 5944 $37.33 MCI Long Distance Telephone Service 5345 $11&57 megoPoU`Ne^wnrxo |nuymot Connection'DGL Line SFO 5940 $1.057.88 MmnoMobi|nCommunicauonn Radio Repairs&Maintenance 5947 $478.81 Moffett Supply Company Sanitation Services 5848 $71.34 Mountain View Garden Center Sand-Rancho San Antonio 5949 $41.42 ~D Northern Energy,Inc. Propane Service 5950 $1.201.39 ^8 Office Depot Office Supplies 5951 $1.005.05 ^10 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Equipment&8upp|ims � 5952 $1.51717 °11 Pacific Bell Telephone Service � 5953 $300.00 °12 Petty Cash Office Supplies � 5954 $1OO9O Pm�aion�ngnovem.Inc. Name Tag Engraving |nc� � 5955 $18.35 Pringle Tractor Co. Tractor Supplies 5956 $792.00 PmoectionVmo Installation of Alarm System-Admin.Office 5957 $1.433.61 Ray LHoUwig Services Cn..Inc. HVAC Repair'Admin.Office&Tenant Space 5858 $72.26 Rayne Water Conditioning Water Conditioner Service 5959 $25D0 RonaHanVoy Repair-GpnnNerSy$om 5960 $3.000.00 Reserve Account Postage'Postage Meter 5901 $85.00 Richard P.Carr R.PT. Ergonomic Assessment 5862 $31.47 Roberts&Brune Co. Field Supplies 5963 *125.57 Roessler,Cindy Reimbursement'Mileage ` 5964 $495.48 Ruy'o Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Sorvinn 5965 $405.84 San Jose Water Company Water Service 5986 $789.95 San Mateo County Sheriffs Office Security Service'Coastal Annexation Meeting � 5967 $196.80 Sxhactman.8usan Reimhomomant-CopyGemioehorCoomMeodng 5808 $1'28&00 3veve,.Richard DBA Rural Pig Mgmnt. Pig Control Services 5909 $14520 `13 Skyline County Water District Water Service � 5970 $350M Smith,Malcom Public Affairs Consultant � 5371 $99.00 Steven Warren Singer Aerial Photos � 5972 $5.075.00 Strong Associates Ag.Economics Consulting Services-BK 5973 $938.13 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense � 5974 $386.68 Tadco3upply Janitorial Supplies � � 5975 $1�60.00 TimothyC.Bea.CEG Consulting Services'ECDw Road Assessment � 5e7* $2243o l�neoon�mmGu Tire� � � 5977 $63.73 Tony&AluaaPizza Local Business Meeting Expense � � 5978 $1.58080 TuuohattTmoNng Trucking Fee'Monte Bello Parking Lot Rock � � 5979 $726.09 Tran.Minh Reimbursement'Tuition&Computer Supplies � � 5980 $51.34 vohznn Pager Service 5981 $101.04 YYn|ammo.Sumudu Reimbursement-Copy Service for Coast Meeting � � Page zm* Claims No. 03-11 Meeting 03-14 Date 06/25/03 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 5982 $805.16 Western Press&Mail Postage-Newsletters-Summer 2003 5983 $150.00 *14 Western Press&Mail General Liability Insurance 5984 $1,768.75 Western Press&Mail Postage-FEIR Postcards 5985 $67.65 Workingman's Emporium Uniforms 5986 $86.18 Xpedite Fax Broadcast System Services 5987 $199.33 *15 Zadek,Lisa Reimbursement-Copy Service for Coast Meeting 5988 R $658.26 Acme&Sons Sanitation Sanitation Services 5989 R $195.00 ADT Security Services Burglar Alarm Service 5990 R $3,700.00 Aerial Information Systems,Inc. Vegetation Map-South Skyline 5991 R $90.32 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Service 5992 R $139.34 Artech&Accent Lamination Supplies 5993 R $334.73 AT&T Wireless Cellular Phone Service 5994 R $679.04 Beck's Shoes Inc. Uniform Boots(2 Pairs) 5995 R $2,024.05 Britton,L.Craig Reim.-Conference-Special Park District 5996 R $777.24 Columbia Printing Envelopes Printing Services 5997 R $27.05 Cupertino Bike Shop Bicycle Supplies 5998 R $761.35 Dell Account Computer Supplies 5999 R $1,673.66 Department of General Services Vehicle Procurement Fee 6000 R $30.00 Dept.of Toxic Substance Control Manifest Fee for Hazmat Removal-Red Barn 6001 R $2,401.51 Emergency Vehicle Systems Vehicle Accessories 6002 R $193.62 Federal Express Express Mailing 6003 R $3,013.68 First Bankcard 189.68-Training&Conf.Exp. 259.94-Internet Services 662.08-Field Equip.Supp.&Uniform Exp. 481.81-Books&Subs. 319.31-Office Supplies 203.80-Local Business Meeting 229.62-Ergo. Furniture 667.44-Special Event Supplies 6004 R $362.13 Forestry Supplies,Inc. Field Supplies 6005 R $50.50 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 6006 R $99.16 Galls Incorporated First Aid Supplies 6007 R $351.46 Great! Printing Services-Maps 6008 R $48.00 Half Moon Bay Review Subscription 6009 R $100.00 Johnston,Dave Honorarium for Docent Enrichment 6010 R $825.92 Just Ergonomics,Inc. Erognomic Equipment 6011 R $175.58 Keeble&Shuchat Photography Photo Processing&Slides Copy 6012 R $14.94 Kwik Key Lock&Safe Co.Inc. Key Duplications 6013 R $309.50 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Legal Services 6014R $1,354.15 Maaco Vehicle Repairs 6015 R $69.36 MCI Long Distance Telephone Service 6016 R $1,101.93 MetroMobile Communications Radios,Repairs&Maintenance 6017 R $2.88 Noble Tractor,Inc. Tractor Supply 6018 R $69.12 Orlandi Trailer Trailer Accessories 6019 R $185.60 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 6020 R $1,237.51 Petrotek Fuel Pump Repairs 6021 R $441.98 Petty Cash Conference&Training Expense,Office&Field Supplies, Vehicle Mileage Reimbursement,Volunteer Supplies, Out of Town&Local Bus.Meeting Expense 6022 R $468.20 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 6023 R $1,058.43 Shell Credit Card Center Fuel 6024 R $1,112.27 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense Page 3 of 4 Claims No. 03-11 Meeting 03-14 Date 06/25/03 Revised I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 6025 R $239.58 The Bicycle Outfitter Bicycle Tools&Parts 6026 R $599.76 Tires on the Go Tires 6027R $1,162.00 WAC Corporation,Inc. Aerial Photos 6028 R $224.03 West Group On-Line Legal Services Total $295,154.28 *1 Urgent Check Issued 5/30/03 *2 Urgent Check Issued 6/10/03 *3 Urgent Check Issued 6/06/03 *4 Urgent Check Issued 6/06/03 *5 Urgent Check Issued 6/05103 *6 Urgent Check Issued 6/10/03 *7 Urgent Check issued 5/30/03 *8 Urgent Check Issued 6/10103 *9 Urgent Check Issued 6/13/03 *10 Urgent Check issued 6/18/03 *11 Urgent Check Issued 6/11103 *12 Urgent Check Issued 6110/03 *13 Urgent Check Issued 6/10/03 *14 Urgent Check Issued 6/03/03 *15 Urgent Check Issued 6/06/03 ### In the event agenda item is not approved,this claim will not be processed Page 4 of 4 i Regional Open Sgpce J MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 03-15 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 9, 2003 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING L ROLL CALL President Nonette Hanko called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Deane Little(arrived at 6:50 p.m.), Ken Nitz, Pete Siemens, and Nonette Hanko Members Absent: None Staff Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, and Cathy Woodbury H. CLOSED SESSION N. Hanko stated that the Board would adjourn to Closed Session to discuss Closed Session Agenda Items 1 and 2. The Board recessed to Closed Session at 6:34 p.m. and the Closed Session commenced at 6:34 p.m. The Board concluded the Closed Session at 7:34 p.m. REGULAR MEETING M. N. Hanko called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. She announced that the Board had discussed Closed Session Agenda Item 1 and 2 in Closed Session and that no j reportable actions had taken place. Additional Staff Present: Sally Thielfoldt, John Maciel, Steve Schur, Lisa Zadek, Del Woods, and Mike Williams IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—There were none. V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA i Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board adopt the agenda. P. Siemens seconded and the motion passed 7 to 0. 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos, CA 9402 2-1 404 * Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 * E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org Web site: www.openspace.org ®FED Board of Directors: Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz * Genera!Manager: L.Craig Britton Meeting 03-15 Page 2 C. Woodbury introduced Steven Schur, Open Space Planner II,to the Board. VL ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR K. Nitz removed Agenda Item 3, Authorization to Amend Annual Service Agreement with HiTech Construction Management and Design, Inc. to Provide Construction Management Services for Capital Improvement Projects in Fiscal Year 2003-2004, Authorize the General Manager to Amend the Annual Service Agreement with HiTech Construction Management and Design, Inc. of San Francisco to Add Construction Management Services for Capital Improvement Projects in Fiscal year 2003-2004 in the Amount of$30,900, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $93,900: Agenda Item 4, Guadalupe River Watershed Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Regional Water Quality Control Board TMDL Process; Authorize the General Manager to Extend the Agreement for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Barg. Coffin. Lewis& Trapp and Authorize Payments Not to Exceed an Additional $25,000; and Agenda Item 5, Midneninsula Regional Open Space District v Wozniak: (Encroachment at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve) Authorize the General Manager r to Approve Litigation Expenses Pursuant to the Retainer Agreement with the Law Firm of Miller, Starr& Regalia in an Additional Amount Not to Exceed $30,000. Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including Revised Claims 03-12. K. Nitz seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. N. Hanko abstained on Claim #6050. V1I. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1 —Adoption of a Salaried Employee Policy as Part of the District's Personnel Policies and Procedures; Adopt the Attached Salaried Employee Policies and Procedures—(Report R-03-66). S. Thielfoldt presented the staff report and reviewed the highlights of the Salaried Employee Policy. She said that consultants were not covered by this policy. She said probably one-third of staff is salaried S. Thielfoldt stated that the District has an excellent administrative leave policy. She said it is not hour for hour, but is designed to recognize that many salaried employees work more than 40 hours per week. She said there is no comp time for salaried employees; however, staff can use flex time. Management Team discusses the flex time policy in their meetings regularly. Regarding Section 5.1 which talked about guidelines, S. Thielfoldt said language was not yet written because there are so many unique situations at the District. She said a big component of the policy is core hours which is about attendance and availability, versus an hourly rate of pay. S. Schectman said if the Board adopted the policy at this meeting, this anticipates that the General Manager establish those guidelines. In the interim the policy f Meeting 03-15 Page 3 itself is sufficiently broad that staff will be able to work within it until specific administrative guidelines are adopted. S. Thielfoldt talked about the terms"salaried" and "exempt." S. Thielfoldt said that all salaried employee issues were addressed in the policy. C. Britton added that changes were made considering staff input. Motion: I Cyr moved that the Board adopt the Salaried Employee Policies and Procedures. L. Hassett seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. B. Agenda Item No. 2-Proposed Exchange of Interests in Real Property with Presentation Center and Proposed Addition to Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Santa Clara County APN 544-50-003, 544-50-005, 544-50-006, and Santa Cruz County APN 091-051-02, 091-051-03) and Approval of Associated Aueements;Determine that the Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act As Set Out in this Reports Adopt the Attached Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Attached Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property, Approving; and Authorizing the Attached Purchase Agreement for the Presentation Center Property, and Approving the Related Documents, Tentatively Adopt the Preliminary Use and Managements Plan Recommendations Contained in this Report and Naming;the Property as an Addition to the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, Indicate Your Intention to Dedicate the 197.95-Acre Presentation Center Property Being Acquired In-Fee as Public Open Space �a ort R-0 -67 1 M. Williams introduced Sister Patricia Marie and Mary McCullough who were in the audience. He provided background information. D. Woods gave a PowerPoint presentation discussing the staff report. He talked about the parking lots, including a permit-only lot. He said there is evidence of motorcycle and four-wheel-drive traffic entering from the Holmes property, so staff would be looking at appropriate barricades. He said it would be nice if the District could work with the neighboring property owner to get that sealed off. Regarding legal recourse if a neighbor allows the public to go through their land, S. Schectman said if the District's land was closed, staff could enforce the trespass ordinance. If a neighbor allowed the public through their property onto the District's property, it could be a nuisance situation. M. Williams presented the terms and conditions of the agreements, including the purchase agreement, exchange agreement, and the reciprocal use agreement. He pointed out the last-minute changes to the agreements requested by Santa Clara County. Y Meeting 03-15 Page 4 M. Williams discussed the grant restrictions from the California Coastal Conservancy and the State Wildlife Conservation Board. He said that at the previous Regular meeting the Board had approved a grant agreement with the Coastal Conservancy for 50 percent funding of this project. That agreement is subject toreview b Ythe Conservancy. . S. Schectman said staff is optimistic that they can answer the Conservancy's questions; however,the comment from the Conservancy suggests that the Conservancy's view is that the appraisal amount should be reduced, and if they don't change their mind, that theoretically could result in less than a 50 percent matching grant. She said the Board needed to be comfortable about approving this transaction knowing that the District might not be guaranteed the full 50 percent match. C. Britton said this is not an unusual circumstance. If the Board approves this, it is approving the full purchase price of$3,365,000, no matter how much grant money the District gets. There is no suggestion that a reduction in the appraisal would result in a reduction in the purchase price. Because of the Cargil transaction, the Conservancy has become very careful about appraisal review. He said it was very unusual to have legal counsel from a third party agency review an appraisal. While staff cannot guarantee the District will get the full half of the grant, he said it was a 99 percent chance that the District would. He was confident the fair market value appraisal was accurate. M. Williams said that he felt that if there were not grant funds available, staff would still recommend the purchase of the property at the suggested price. I Cyr suggested some corrections: Exhibit A, page 4, last sentence under paragraph F, insert"be." Page 5, item 8, add commas to the dollar amount instead of periods. Exhibit C, page 2,third line from the bottom, take out extra underline. D. Woods talked about the dump sites, and said that there was nothing suspicious there,just household waste. M. Williams said the water tanks have been removed from the Christmas tree farm. D. Woods said the two water tanks at the top of the property were part of the Presentation water system. D. Woods said the fire management plan would be through the Master Planning process; field staff will review and make immediate recommendations on what should be done. C. Britton said with this agreement, they were solving any prescriptive rights. S. Schectman said there are no third party claims of prescriptive rights on the Sisters' property staff is aware of. I Meeting 03-15 Page 5 In regard to the Preliminary Use and Management plan regarding use by the public, D. Woods said Planning staff had GPS-ed everything. He pointed out an acknowledged problem—there are no safe crossings of Bear Creek Road, so staff doesn't want to put trails into a permit system until the master plan is complete. C. Britton said the District's permits are mainly for equestrians and neighbors, and staff does not want to encourage parking on the road, as it is very narrow. C. Woodbury spoke to the issue of the master planning for Bear Creek and Sierra Azul. She said that the process is starting later this year and will include public and Board input. She said staff needs to evaluate this area prior to letting the public onto the preserve. D. Woods showed existing trails on a map and pointed out problems. C. Woodbury said she would check to see if this is part of the vegetation study. Regarding camping, M. Williams said he thought the camping had taken place since the caretaker moved out. Someone is squatting where he lived. C. Britton said that the Sisters of Presentation have been very supportive since the District first acquired Bear Creek. He said this is a symbiotic relationship, similar to the District's relationship with Hidden Villa. He said that he was proud that the District can do this transaction and work together with a group that is so closely aligned with what both groups are trying to accomplish. D. Woods said P e si na a would b art of the Master Plan. C. Britton said even the g g existing easement is not good line of sight. The entry would have to be realigned and the road straightened out which would affect property owned by someone else. He said this might never be a point of access. The way it is currently configured, this would only be a permit lot. Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as set out in the staff report; adopt Resolution No. 03-23, Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Officer to Execute Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute Purchase Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute Easement Deeds, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificates of Acceptance of Grants to District, Authorizing Officer to Execute Reciprocal Easement and Use Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of These Transactions(Bear Creek Meeting 03-15 Page 6 Redwoods Open Space Preserve—Lands of The Presentation Center);tentatively adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan recommendations contained in the staff report and naming the property as an addition to the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve; and indicate their intention to dedication the 197.95-acre Presentation Center Property being acquired in-fee as public open space. P. Siemens seconded the motion. Discussion: Sister Patricia Marie said she was happy to reach a symbiotic relationship with the District. One of their key goals was to promote the sustainability of the earth. She said they knew they did not have the personnel or means to do adequate forest management. She said the parking lot has been under discussion for some 70 years. She said the money would become an endowment for the maintenance of the property so they will be able to the keep the retreat center and the spirituality of it as well as the ecological education. She invited Board Members to attend a dinner and tour of the facility. She talked about the new building which would include solar power. Vote: The motion passed 7 to 0. C. Agenda Item No. 3—Authorization to Amend Annual Service Agreement with HiTech Construction Management and Design, Inc. to Provide Constructian Management Services for Capital Improvement Projects in Fiscal Year 2003- 2004; Authorize the General Manager to Amend the Annual Service Agreement with HiTech Construction Management and Design, Inc. of San Francisco to Add Construction Management Services for Capital Improvement Projects in Fiscal year 2003-2004 in the Amount of$30,900,for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $93,900—(Report R-03-65). C. Woodbury said the required modifications related to the indemnification clause. The other bidding consultant did not want to indemnify District, which was why staff was recommending amending the agreement with HiTech. S. Schectman said this is a normal requirement. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to amend the annual service agreement with HiTech Construction Management and Design, Inc. of San Francisco to add construction management services for capital improvement projects in fiscal year 2003-2004 in the amount of$30,900, for a total amount not to exceed $93,900. P. Siemens seconded the motion._The motion passed 7 to 0. D. Agenda Item No. 4, Guadalupe River Watershed Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Regional Water Quality Control Board TMDL Process: Meeting 03-15 Page 7 Authorize the General Manager to Extend the Agreement for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Barg, Coffin, Lewis & Trapp and Authorize Payments Not to Exceed an Additional $25,000—(Report R-03-64). S. Schectman said work has continued on this project. She said the law firm has waited patiently for payment expecting that the NRDA process would have concluded earlier. They will not move forward on the TMDL until the Board approves the expenditure at this meeting. The firm did go over budget by$4,000 which is covered with tonight's approval. She said these were unusual circumstances. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to extend the agreement for legal services with the Law Firm of Barg, Coffin, Lewis & Trapp and authorize payments not to exceed an additional $25,000. J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. E. Agenda Item No. 5, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District v. Wozniak: (Encroachment at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve) Authorize the General Manager to Approve Litigation Expenses Pursuant to the Retainer Agreement with the Law Firm of Miller. Starr&Regalia in an Additional Amount Not to Exceed $30,000—(Report R-03-63). S. Schectman said additional funds would be needed to bring the case to conclusion. K. Nitz suggested that when these situations occur that they be brought to the Board sooner. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to approve litigation expenses pursuant to the retainer agreement with the Law Firm of Miller, Starr&Regalia in the matter of Midoeninsula Regional Open Space District v. Wozniak in an additional amount not to exceed $30,000. M. Davey seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS M. Davey said there will be a hearing on the trail situation on Stanford lands. She said this was a County meeting. K. Nitz said he had dinner with Matt Allen. D. Little: 1. He got a constituent call saying the parking lot was full at Rancho San Antonio at 7:00 a.m on Saturday morning. C. Britton said if we have to provide additional parking, Cristo Rey would have to be widened from two lanes to four. 2. He noticed trail widening on Rhus Ridge, and asked why. He was used to seeing 3-1/2 foot wide trails, and they are now 5-6 feet wide. He was not sure why. J. Maciel said trails Meeting 03-15 Page 8 get annual maintenance. The Sweko makes them wider, but they naturally narrow down after a few years. D. Little expressed concern regarding the spread of star thistle where trail work had been done. He asked about the sloping process. J. Maciel said part of their new standard is that they out-slope trails which helps water disbursement. He talked about why the District used that method. C. Britton said the out-sloping comes from the Tim Best study at El Corte de Madera and it is what all agencies are moving to including the forest service, so that water sheets off. D. Little said he was not sure he agreed with the practice. C. Woodbury said that these are standard details that staff has been working on in the action plan and the resource management strategic plan. A lot of Tim Best's work has been incorporated and he has participated 3. On Black Mountain Trail, he encountered a lone biker using trails closed to bikes. He stopped him and was told he was on a"nostalgic ride." P. Siemens attended Bill Cook's Fourth of July party on the coast. He ran into B. J. Burns and had a nice conversation. He thought he had a better appreciation of the District. J. Cyr said a resolution will go in front of the Sunnyvale council, likely on the 15t'. He and J. Escobar would attend. L. Hassett: 1. He went to three Fourth of July parties, including Bill Cook's. He also had a very positive conversation with B. J. Burns. 2 He talked about what happened at the Woodside Town Council meeting, and said it was sort of an ambush. He said it was clear that they wanted the District to become more responsive to their community and their citizens. He talked about some of the issues that were raised at the meeting. C. Britton said that staff would follow up with. N. Hanko: 1. L. Hassett was well received at Bill Cook's party. 2. She gave a brief overview of her experience at the British Columbia conference and what she saw in Vancouver and Victoria. She brought literature and shared booklets and had put together a picture portfolio. C. Britton: 1. The FYI's contained the following: Notice of a Financing Authority meeting on August 13; a letter to Mariquita West; a press release from Henry Coe State Park; and a design for letterhead for the 30a'anniversary. 2. D. Sanguinetti is in Switzerland for five weeks and Craig Beckman is the acting Area Superintendent. 3. He met with Sup. Jerry Hill. 4. The State budget is stalled. 5. Regarding the recall effort, they are claiming they have enough signatures to go on the ballot. If it is a special election, it will cost at least $30 million. 6. J. Escobar is at the Portola Valley City Council meeting tonight. 7. The party for J. Escobar is on July 25 at 5:30 P.M. at Picchetti. C. Woodbury said there would be a Use and Management Committee site visit on Saturday and another Use and Management meeting on August 16 on-site at Pulgas. S. Thielfoldt reported that field staff received ergonomic training. i Meeting 03-15 Page 9 K. Nitz said he was doing the Los Altos Art and Wine Festival on Sunday. I Maciel said the Russian Ridge burn has been put off for two weeks. ADJO URNMENT J RNMENT U At 9:58 p.m. the Regular Meeting adjourned. At 10:13 p.m., the Board adjourned to the Special Meeting Closed Session to discuss Closed Session Agenda Item No. 2. The Special Meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m. No reportable action was taken. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary � � . | � � Claims No. 03' 2 Meeting 03-15 | Deho 7/9/03 � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 6039 $135.21 A-Tvo!Shed,Inc. Roofing Nail Gun Rental'DHF | 6030 $365.00 ADT Security Services Burglar Alarm Service | 1031 11.131J2 Albion Environmental,Inc. Biological Services-Old Page Mill Trail Repair 0032 $738.98 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Service and Repairs | 6033 $8.81 Baron Welding&Iron Works,Inc. Plumbing Supply � 6034 $36.00 Bay Area Air Quality MgmmDktrict Permit m Operate Fuel Tank'SFO 6035 $339.52 BecKo Shoes Inc. Uniform Shoes ! 8036 $122.18 Body Therapeutics Safety Supplies 0087 %153.36 California Water Service Company Water Service � 6030 %414O0 Camino Medical Group Medical Services � 0039 $%VODV CARPOSA Registration'G.BoiUin,C. 8h«mn.J.Maoie|.SmnQo 6040 $417.01 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Field Supplies ! 0041 &VD.VO Clark Pest Control Pest Control 6042 $12.01576 Columbia Printing Map Phnhng'R8a.Pudsimo and G.Skyline Region | 6043 $406.21 Comuo Supplies � � 6044 $116,96 Davey,Mary Reimbursement'Mileage 6045 $2.138.00 Diane L Renshaw Consulting Ecologist Conau|UngSeminom-Pu|gooRidgeTnexe 60*6 %50.50 G&KService Shop Towel Service 6047 $56.67 Galls Incorporated First Aid Supplies 6048 $3.650.00 Gon|ogioa.Inc. Consul onQ'Smvana Creek Shoreline Nomna Study Area e049 $182,58 Green Waste Recovery,Inc. Garbage Services 6050 $1.599,34 Honxn'Nonouu Reim.'Conference-Special Park District Forum 6051 $58.90 Jobs Available,Inc. Subscription Renewal 0052 $410J4 Just Ergonomics,Inc. EmgnomioEqui;mant 6053 %15.000.00 Macias,Gini&Company Auditor Services 6054 *84.97 Malone,Brian Reimbursement'Field Supply 6055 $50.87 MCI Long Distance Telephone Service 6056 $0577 Mm^mMubi|eCommunivatiuns Radio Repairs&Maintenance 0057 *32.33 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 6058 $24.84 Peninsula Digital Imaging Printing-Site Plans-Virginia Mill Trail 6059 $17.26 Pringle Tractor Co. Tractor Supplies 6060 $837 Rancho Hardware&Garden Shop Field Supplies 6061 $270.73 Ruy'a Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 5062 $156.37 SehytyK|onn Oil Recycling&Solvent Tank Service 0063 $34.93 San Jose Mercury News Subscription 0064 $732.00 ~4 San Mateo Co.Planning&Building Div. Grabtown Gulch Project Building Permit 6065 $732D0 `2 San Mateo Co.Planning&Building Div. Virginia Mill Project Building Permit 6066 $1.940.00 °1 San Mateo Co.Planning&Building Div. Virginia Mill Project Planning Permit � 6067 32.000.00 ^3 San Mateo Co.Planning&Building Div. GrablownGu|ch Project Planning Permit � 6008 $88.00 Santa Clara County-Office n[Sheriff Fingerprinting'New Recruit � VOVg $18.31 SBC Payment Center Telephone Service 6070 $136.80 Skyline County Water District Water Service � 0071 $24814 Soma Ergonomics,Inc. Office Furniture 0072 _ $100.00 Spectrum Resources Radio License Renewal Page,ofz � Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 13, 2003 Mr.James Citta citta(a,aol.com Re: Electronic mail message regarding Rancho de Guadalupe Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Dear Mr. Citta: Thank you for your recent e-mail message expressing interest in public access to the Rancho de Guadalupe Area at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. As you may know,the property is currently closed to the public at this time pending the completion of a master plan for the entire preserve. However, approximately 80%of the nearly 50,000 acres of open space land owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is open to public access,providingsubstantial and varie d opportunities for r outdoor enjoyment.en . The remaining 20/ are currently an integral part of a regional greenbelt protecting the natural environment for future generations,but are only temporarily closed to public access. Over the years, the District Board has learned that opening lands prior to comprehensive planning can lead to the establishment of undesirable use patterns that may impact the neighbors, wildlife, w p , d e or waterquality. The Y p ,g master plan will serve as a blueprint to guide the future of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve over the next twenty years,describing appropriate protections to avoid undesirable situations. The plan will also address the further protection of the Preserve's natural and cultural resources in conjunction with a strategy for compatible public use. Given the wide range of issues,we anticipate that it will take several years to complete this master plan. Once the process starts,there will be numerous opportunities for public participation,beginning with a workshop for neighbors and representatives from other agencies and organizations to begin laying out a vision for the Preserve. The target date for an initial workshop is early spring 2004. We value your volunteer efforts, as well as your input,and look forward to your participation throughout the planning process. In the meantime, should you have any questions about Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve or the upcoming master plan,please feel free to contact Sandy Sommer, Senior Planner, at(650) 691-1200. Sincerely, Nonette Hanko President, Board of Directors NH:sgs cc: MROSD Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org I Claims No. 03-12 Meeting 03-15 Date 7/9/03 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space district # Amount Name Description 6073 $287.68 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense 6074 $129.73 Tran,Minh Reimbursement-Computer Supplies 6075 $545.46 Turf&Industrial Equipment Co. Vehicle Supplies 6076 $30.06 Union 76 Fuel Expense 6077 $971.00 United Rentals Highway Tech, Trail Direction Signs&Misc.Preserve Signs Total $48,588.06 "4 Urgent Check Issued 6/30/03 *2 Urgent Check Issued 6/30/03 '1 Urgent Check Issued 6/30103 '3 Urgent Check Issued 6/30/03 i l I Page 2 of 2 Sandra Sommer From: Sandra Sommer Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:21 PM To: Cathy Woodbury Subject: FW: Sierra Azul Cathy- Here's another "open RDG" message. I'm assuming this can get a similar response to the other letter, and that you would like me to write it for the Aug 13 meeting. Please let me know if not. . . Sandy -----Original Message----- From: General Information Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:38 PM To: Sandra Sommer Cc: Paul McKowan Subject: Fw: Sierra Azul Hi Sandy, Y Is this something you can respond to? -Kristi III ----- Original Message ----- From: <Citta@aol.com> To: <info@openspace.org> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 7:10 AM Subject: Sierra Azul > To Whom it may concern, > I am a frequent volunteer to district projects. Yesterday I participated > in boundary fence construction at the "newly" acquired Sierra Azul property > near the Los Gatos Christian Church. I place "newly" in parenthesis because > the area was purchased over five years ago, and this beautiful place is still > not open to the public! > It's wonderful that we have an organization that purchases valuable > properties, and I appreciate the sometimes lengthy procedures involved; like > impact reports, inventories of plants and animals, etc. But, after 5 years, what > more needs to be done? All of us are paying for these purchases, and we should > benefit from them within a reasonable amount of time. 1 > What is the timeline for this property? Are there plans to open it in > the near future? If not, what is the holdup? > Thanks for your time. > James Citta i i 2 I Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 13, 2003 Mr. Greg Azevedo azevedog (a,netscape.net Re: Electronic mail message regarding Rancho de Guadalupe Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Dear Mr. Azevedo: Thank you for your recent e-mail message expressing interest in public access to the Rancho de Guadalupe Area at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. As you may know, the property is currently closed to the public at this time pending the completion of a master plan for the entire preserve.However, approximately 80%of the nearly 50,000 acres of open space land owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is open to public access,providing substantial and varied opportunities for outdoor enjoyment. The remaining 20%are currently an integral part of a regional greenbelt protecting the natural environment for future generations,but are only temporarily closed to public access. Over the years,the District Board has learned that opening lands prior to comprehensive planning can lead to the establishment of undesirable use patterns that may impact the neighbors,wildlife,or water quality. The master plan will serve as a blueprint to guide the future of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve over the next twenty years, describing appropriate protections to avoid undesirable situations. Your suggestions regarding a less strenuous recreational experience and the implementation of a permit access system will all be specifically addressed in the master plan. The plan will also address the further protection of the Preserve's natural and cultural resources in conjunction with a strategy for compatible public use. Given the wide range of issues we anticipate that it will take seve ral years to complete this master plan. Once the process starts,there will be numerous opportunities for public participation,beginning with a workshop for neighbors and representatives resentatives from other agencies and organizations anizations to begin laying out a vision for the Preserve. The target date for an initial workshop Y spring is earl s rin 2004. We value our volunteer effor ts,rts,as well as your input,and look forward to your participation throughout the planning process. In the meantime, should you have an questions about Sierra Azul en Space Y any � p Preserve or the upcoming master plan,please feel free to contact Sandy Sommer, Senior Planner,at(650) 691-1200. Sincerely, Nanette Hanko President,Board of Directors NH:sgs cc: MROSD Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosdoopenspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org Lisa Zadek From: Lisa Zadek Sent: Tuesday,July 22. 2003 10:57 AM To: Lisa Z Subject: FW: MROSD Board of Directors ----- Original Message ----- From: <azevedogg@netscape.net> To: <kwebb@openspace.org> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: To: MROSD Board of Directors > Date: Saturday, July 19, 2003 > To: MROSD Board of Directors > > From: Greg G. Azevedo > 'Please forward onto the above mentioned people" > > As a long time MROSD Docent and longer time advocate of open > space especially the Sierra Azul areas I wanted to make a few > comments related to my positive experiences as a MROSD Volunteer > Saturday, 07/19/2003 RDG Fence Construction. > First off, the MROSD staff did a good job of preparing the > work site and letting us know we'd do what we could to complete > the task. The weather was a bit warmer than is usual and no doubt > impacted our work ethic. The group provided some ideas which might > be a help for follow-up projects. We completed most of the core > task. >I hope to try another sometime and will be personally better prepared > for a similar work effort. > I hope to encourage you to direct staff and resources to this area > and in particular this specific property. No doubt there are many > reasons to side step and analyze further the possible impacts and > concerns. My view is more simple. For such a large area of public > lands there is a fairly small portion of areas which are more > accessible and suitable for lesser strenous enjoyment and recreation. > The other projects in this area will be a great help in conjunction > with other agencies. Enforcement resources have been and will usually > be in shorter supply than some of the demand and larger area needs. > More use will remove some of the misuse, but create other problems >I know you can and will expect. I just believe that more use will > remove the cloak and make these special places a benefit to us all and > the misuse will hopefully be smaller and proper use and appreciation > many times greater. > Having done for 18 years a Memorial Day Hike on the Waterwheel Creek > Trail (MB-OSP) using a permit and gated parking area I am certain > a similar set-up would work fine for the Rancho de Guadalupe area. > I know that staff cannot spearhead such a proposal at this time, nor > my request to do something like this on a semi-regular basis be > honored, but I am ready and bet many others in the MRSOD Docent > program might also be. > Please encourage the use of this area ASAP. You have more to gain > than to lose. > Respectfully, > Greg G. Azevedo > > McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. > Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! > http-.//channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 > Download Now. Get AOL.Instant Messenger 51 free of charge. Do > http-.//aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 2 Regional Open f._ ice ---------- ---------- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-03-74 Meeting 03-17 August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM I AGENDA ITEM Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project and Tentative Adoption of an Ayrfi6ndment to the Use and Management Plan for Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENI)AiION_�, I Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt the CEQA and De Minimis Findings as set out in Exhibit E of this report. 2. Tentatively adopt the Use and Management Committee's recommendation to amend the Use and Management Plan for Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve for demolition of the fon-ner Hassler Health Home waste treatment facility, development of a parking and staging area, and construction of three new trails. 3. Tentatively adopt the Use and Management Committee's recommendation to expand the off-leash dog access area as discussed in this report. BACKGROUND In 1985, the Board directed staff to develop a planning proposal to address public access issues at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, formerly known as the Hassler property(see Report M-85-168). That proposal identified access needs that included development of a parking area and construction of additional trails at the Preserve. Staff identified trails that could be developed, all of which have been constructed except for a trail in the south canyon area of the Preserve. To address the need for additional public parking, several locations, including the adjacent Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vista Point and Park &Ride lot, were studied. Due to federal legislation and a complex and challenging administrative process necessary to obtain right-of-way access for the District's desired use, these options were abandoned. In 1987, the Board directed staff to study the feasibility of constructing a parking and staging area at the site of the former Hassler Health Home waste treatment facility(see Report R-87-135). Over the next few years, staff conducted studies, performed testing, and obtained cost estimates to determine the viability of this proposal. In 1995, the Board approved the submittal of a matching grant application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund to implement the Pulgas Ridge Public Access Improvement Project (see Report R-95-113). The project included demolition of the former 330 Distel Circle # Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 * Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 9 E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org * Web site:www.openspace.org a-ME-E Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton R-03-74 Page 2 Hassler Health Home waste treatment facility, development of a parking and staging area in that location, and construction of two trails. The Board also approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as described. However, due to limited funding and the high number of applications received by the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) that year, the District did not receive the proposed grant. In 2001, you approved the submittal of a revised matching grant application for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition to the project elements proposed in the previous application, an additional trail on the then recently acquired Benedetti property(see Report R-00-46)was added to the proposal. The project elements now include demolition of the former Hassler Health Home waste treatment facility, construction of an approximately 18-vehicle parking and staging area at this site (including a restroom and trailhead signage), and construction of three new trails totaling approximately 3.5 miles. The proposed"south canyon"trail would extend from Blue Oak Trail through the preserve's south canyon, connecting with the Polly Geraci Trail. The proposed "connector"trail would link the proposed staging area with the whole access Cordilleras Trail. Finally, the newly proposed"ridgetop"trail would extend from the western end of Hassler Trail and ascend to the ridge that adjoins San Francisco Water Department lands, eventually descending to the easternmost end of Cordilleras Trail. As a result of this enhanced proposal, the District was awarded the full grant amount requested for the construction of this project and received an additional augmentation that brought the total award to $157,577, or fifty-percent(50) of the project's cost. The deadline for completion of this project is May 2005. This project as described above is identified as a key project in the Planning Department's 2003-2004 Action Plan and Work Program. DISCUSSION The Use and Management Committee held its first public meeting for the Pulgas Ridge Public Access Improvement Project at the site on May 31, 2003. At that meeting, staff introduced the project for the first time with an explanation of the project's history and a presentation of the project's elements. After a tour of the project area, the Committee invited the public to ask questions and provide comments regarding the proposed project(see Exhibit A -"Project Elements Map"). Overall the project was well received, although there were concerns focused on the possible g presence of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a State and Federally listed species of concern. The proposed alignment of the "ridgetop"trail would traverse an area of the Preserve containing a large number(or colony) of woodrat nests. Committee members were concerned that the presence of dogs on this future trail would negatively impact the species of concern. They directed staff to re-route the trail alignment once the consulting ecologist had developed recommendations on how to avoid impacts to the woodrats and to present the findings to the Committee at a later date. The Committee otherwise voted unanimously to recommend that the Board approve demolition of the waste treatment facility, development of the parking area, and construction of the "south canyon" and"connector"trails. R-03-74 Page 3 At this meeting, a request was made by Director Nitz that staff examine the possibility of expanding the existing off-leash dog access area that was approved by the Board in 1996 (see Report R-95- 146). In particular, a small clearing immediately adjacent to the existing off-leash dog access area was suggested. Staff was asked to determine the feasibility of the proposed expansion. On June 26, 2003, the Committee met at the District's administrative office to review the proposed alignment for the "ridgetop"trail. As directed, the trail had been re-routed to avoid the woodrat nests following recommendations made by the District's consulting ecologist and the California Department of Fish and Game. The re-routed trail accomplished this by incorporating three additional switchbacks that would traverse the area northwest of the woodrat nests. Although the re-routed trail avoided the woodrat nests, the concern of an occasional unleashed dog(in violation of District ordinances) on this trail prompted a request by the Committee for another on-site meeting to walk the proposed alignment. During this meeting staff also identified two small areas, totaling approximately 1.5-acres, that could be opened to off-leash dog use. Since the proposed areas have previously been disturbed and contain no special status species or habitats of concern (determined by the consulting ecologist during an on-site survey), no ecological constraints were present and expansion to include these two areas appeared to be acceptable. Thereafter, the Committee unanimously voted to bring the proposed off-leash dog access expansion areas to the full Board as part of the Use and Management Plan amendment(see Exhibit B -"Off-Leash Dog Access Area Expansion Map"). The Committee convened on site for a third time on July 31, 2003 when staff led a hike along the proposed re-routed trail. During the hike, staff explained that, given the steep topography and dense vegetation in the area(especially poison oak), even an occasional off-leash dog would not adversely impact the woodrat nests. To further reduce any possible negative impacts as a result of off-leash dogs, low wire fencing along designated sections of trail and interpretive signing would be installed. In addition, signs warning the public of the presence of poison oak will be posted and all areas disturbed during trail construction will be re-vegetated. Staff and the Committee discussed the implementation of surveys to monitor compliance with the on-leash dog regulation once the trail is open to the public, which is a component of the project. The Committee then voted unanimously to recommend approval of the"ridgetop"trail by the Board. The Committee's recommendation included posting poison oak warning signs and monitoring dog use on the trail, and re-vegetating the disturbed roadbeds. As a separate motion, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend that staff work with the Redwood Center on the proposed alignment of the "connector"trail that was approved by the Committee on May 31, 2003 as part of the Use and Management Plan amendment. Staff met with Mr. Perry Zinnattani, Manager of the Redwood Center, on July 23, 2003 to discuss the "connector" trail that would be routed behind and adjacent to the Redwood Center. Mr. Zinnattani expressed the desire to have the trail routed away from the facility as much as possible. District staff concurred and explained that the trail would be routed as closely to the drip line of the trees as possible and away from the buildings and a grass meadow that is used for outdoor gatherings. R-03-74 Page 4 Once determined, the proposed trail route would be presented to the Redwood Center for review. Staff also stated that in order to ensure privacy, low split rail fencing(similar to that at Cordilleras Trail) and directional signs would be installed along the trail route in order to keep the public on the trail and off the Redwood Center property(which is owned by the City and County of San Francisco). In March of this year, the District entered into a contract with LFR Levine-Fricke, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications for demolition of the waste treatment facility and construction of the parking and staging area(see Report R-03-31). If the Board adopts this Use and Management Plan amendment, staff will work to obtain the necessary permits from San Mateo County and California Department of Fish and Game to construct the trails over the next two years. In addition, the demolition of the waste treatment facility and construction of the staging area is anticipated to occur during summer 2004. FUNDING At your March 26, 2003 meeting, you adopted the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget that included $73,000 towards completion of the Pulgas Ridge Public Access Improvement Project(see Report R-03-34). Construction of the trails are scheduled to occur in 2004 and demolition of the waste treatment facility and construction of the staging area will take place in the summer and fall of 2004. CEQA COMPLIANCE On September 27, 1995, the District complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)by approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve Public Access Improvement Project (see Report R-95-113). CEQA provides that after a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent environmental documentation is required, unless the lead agency determines that there have been substantial changes to the project or to the circumstances concerning the project, which involve new significant environmental effects, or determines that there is new information of substantial importance showing that the project will have significant environmental effects not previously discussed, or that the significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than previously shown. Since the project was revised in 2001 to include the new "ridgetop"trail, District staff prepared another Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration titled the Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project (for CEQA purposes, "the project"), which is provided under a separate cover as Exhibit C. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration found that a number of CEQA impact criteria simply do not apply to the project due to the project site's remote location and the preserve's low- intensity recreational character. The document also found that the project avoids many other impacts or minimizes them to a less-than-significant level because of project specific factors such as District design guidelines for drainage improvements, tree protection, and restoration. R-03-74 Page 5 Most notably, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration found that the project would not adversely affect biological, geological, or historical and cultural resources because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project has reduced the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Biological Resources Diane Renshaw, Consulting Ecologist, conducted biological surveys in March, June, and July 2003. The purpose of these surveys was to identify any special status plants and wildlife within the project area, and to recommend measures to avoid impacts to those resources as necessary. In addition to field surveys Ms. Renshaw consulted the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) records for the Woodside 7.5' quadrangle for San Mateo County for special status species and natural community occurrences in the project vicinity (CNDDB, 1999 and 2003), contacted and interviewed botanists and wildlife biologists knowledgeable about this area for information on species known to them to exist at the site or having the potential to occur there, and reviewed personal records and field notes from reconnaissance level survey work in the San Francisco Water District watershed lands. Ms. Renshaw determined the presence of only one special status plant species—Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis - a CLAPS List lb species). Its known location at the head of the drainage on the southeast part of the Preserve was visited on March 5. No other individuals or populations of Dirca were found in oak woodland understory or along any part of the trail alignments. Therefore, no significant impact is expected. Ms. Renshaw has also detected the presence of two distinct associations of the purple needlegrass series, a sensitive natural community: (1)purple needlegrass association, and (2) mixed California annual grassland -purple needlegrass association. Portions of the proposed trails' alignments cross one or more of these purple needlegrass grasslands. Following Ms. Renshaw's recommendations, when feasible, the trail routes were aligned to skirt the edge of the grassland, avoiding the dense patches of needlegrass. In areas where the proposed trails would be built through the grassland, the alignment will be fine- tuned,prior to construction, to avoid the densest clusters of the native perennial bunchgrasses. In addition, exotic invasives will be controlled prior to and post construction. Bare soils that remain after development of the new trail will be re-vegetated with native grasses and wildflowers collected from on-site sources, or with the same palette of species derived from other local populations. Revegetation of bare soils with native plants will minimize the spread of aggressive exotics into the needlegrass grassland. Based on Ms. Renshaw's observations, one sensitive mammal species, the San Francisco dusky- footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), is conspicuously present in the brushlands and in the understory of the coast live oak woodlands at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. Woodrat nest surveys along the proposed trails and in their vicinity were also conducted during March, June and July 2003. Ms. Renshaw, in consultation with wildlife professionals from California Department of Fish and Game, as well as other qualified biologists, provided staff with the following management recommendations: (1) the trail alignment should be situated so that the woodrat nests are not readily visible to passing hikers and are in a sufficient distance from the trail so that leashed dogs do not dig into lodges, remove sticks from lodges or the nearby area, and are not close enough to mark R-03-74 Page 6 territory on the lodges or inside the boundaries of the colony; (2) create visual screening, when necessary, using site-specific native shrubs in the planting; (3)post signs in both directions along the trail approaching the vicinity of the lodges with language that clearly stresses that a sensitive species is present and that dogs off-leash may cause damage to these species; and (4) install low wire fencing that will not impede the movement of woodrats and other wildlife along the bank of the trail yet will prevent dogs from impacting the lodges. Implementation of these management recommendations will avoid any significant impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Geological Resources Geologic fieldwork and preliminary findings have been prepared by Timothy C. Best, Certified Engineering Geologist. Mr. Best concluded that site geologic conditions are compatible with trail development, that there are no geologic or hydrologic hazards that would compromise the trail prism, and that trails development and low-intensity use of the trails will not cause local erosion problems or result in sedimentation to hydrologic resources. Historical and Cultural Resources District staff conducted a review of in-house Preserve and docent files and found no records of historical or cultural resources in the project area. As required by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, District staff also contacted the Northwest Information Center(NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University and requested a literature review and records search of all documents pertaining to the project area. There are no known historical or archaeological sites in the project area. Although Native Americans inhabited much of the Santa Cruz Mountains, the specific environmental setting of the trail project suggests a low potential for Native American sites. Since trail construction does involve ground disturbance, there is always the possibility of accidentally disturbing unknown archaeological resources. Archeological resources include buried features such as stone or adobe foundation or walls, wooden remains with square nails, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, and heat affected rock. CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed Use and Management Plan amendment for Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve includes the demolition of the Hassler Health Home waste treatment facility, development of a parking and staging area in its location, and construction of the "south canyon," "ridgetop," and "connector"trails as shown on Exhibit A. This amendment also includes posting poison oak warning signs and monitoring dog use on the "ridgetop" trail, working with the Redwood Center to "connector" de termine the alignment of the connector trail and re-ve getating etatin the disturbed roadbeds resent � � g g p on the Preserve. In addition, this Use and Management Plan amendment also includes expansion of the off-leash dog access area to include the additional approximately 1.5-acre areas as shown on Exhibit B. R-03-74 Page 7 Public Notification A notice describing the project, the District's intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and this public meeting was mailed on July 10, 2003 to owners and occupants of property contiguous to Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, as well as to persons who had previously expressed an interest in the Preserve. This notice was also posted at the Preserve in several locations, on the District website, and submitted to the Clerk of San Mateo County to post for 30 days. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available for public review at the District Administrative Office, on the District website, and at the Cities of Los Altos and San Carlos Libraries. Therefore, all public notice requirements of CEQA have been met. Comments Received No comments were received from the public or from trustee or responsible agencies. Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with CEQA, the District has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program, which describes the mitigation measures and monitoring process for the project (See Exhibit D). The Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration(Exhibit C), Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit D), and adopt the CEQA and De Minimis Findings (Exhibit E). Prepared by: Douglas Vu, ASLA, Open Space Planner I Ruthie Harari-Kremer, Planning Technician Contact Person: Douglas Vu, ASLA, Open Space Planner I Exhibits: A. Project Elements Map B. Off-Leash Dog Access Area Expansion Map C. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration(under separate cover) D. Mitigation Monitoring Program E. CEQA and De Minimis Findings PULGAS RJPGE OPEN SPACrOPRESERVE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1 i 141 f ON y800 ` r . r yy r Moto, I i • �qo 1# PROPOSED "RIDGETOP" • r 1 /_. ♦' TRAIL v♦• I ., Pally Geraci Trail � � � �aA* ♦ �; .... k PR01141 .1 tD/ ' C7 f� �r ♦,. 'T •••••' •• ater Tank (PR02) Has f j sler Trail *•� — •��0.� Hassler Loop Trail `, r ,.., PROPOSED ♦ "CONNECTOR" " (y PROPOSED • �•. Off-Leash Dog Area TRAIL / "SOUTH CANYON" TRAIL ♦� ♦♦ © �.`.• '\\•� �XGoo N ♦ �•�••..............•' flue ♦■�♦ #Oak 1~■■� #.1•♦ Trail �#�o R ♦4■■r • `Reilmxaid�= ��� - • '� •0®�Center 401, PROPOSED �311,. ❑ /� PARKING/STAGING \ Cordilleras ���/ AREA \� Center ` �z aoo EDGEWOOD COUNTY PARK (San Mateo County) 0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 EXHIBIT A: Project Elements Map One Mile PULGAS R*)GE OPEN SPACF&PRESERVE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (ONs ■rN I� 300 AF f �1 /♦4V#. t iAt, Sr •Polly Lraci Trail ��� /.' ... il ` rAll ofs j •• t /f fY.••• Proposed Off-Leash Dog �l Access Expansion Areas �►.., Hassler Trail water rank _ •(PR02) . Hassler Loop T rail • ! 4 1� Off-Leash Dug Area � Nw� ••••�•''•. .*flue � .�� 11� 600 ♦Os'♦ate• ••...........• ak • , y '`•f���■►r1 i� Trail ♦0 21 4 0 _� •.- 280 Cordilleras Center! �A 400 ~``—-- - EDG EWOOD COUNTY PARK y/ (San Mateo County) 0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 5 .G .7 .8 .9 1.0 One Mile EXHIBIT B: Off-Leash Dog Access Area Expansion Map Exhibits C and D Copies of these exhibits and source documentation are available to be reviewed or obtained at the MROSD Administrative Office, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, 650-691-1200. Copies of just Exhibit C, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, are also available for review at the following locations: • Los Altos Library, 13 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA, 94022, Phone: 650.948.7683 • San Carlos Library, 610 Elm Street, San Carlos, CA, 94070, Phone: 650.591.0341 The Mitigated Negative Declaration(Exhibit C) can also be viewed or downloaded free of charge, at www.openspace.org. i MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve San Mateo County, CA �I I July 11, 2003 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 650-691-1200 i EXHIBIT C | � � l����m �.� � � "=�".~ ~" ~��..m�..uo � � � NEGATIVE DECLARATION l � � .... � -------------------------------------------.. l � � FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ------------------------- 1 | MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT 2 ------------------------ � RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION � ---------------------------------4 INITIAL STUDY ------------------------------------------------..4 | REVIEW PERIOD ------------------------------------------------4 CONTACT PERSON | ----------------------------------------------..4 / 5 | / PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 -------------------------------------------.. � SURROUNDING LAND USES -----------------------------------------6 SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS 8 -------------------------------------------.. � ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: .....................................................................''9 -----------------------------------------------9 � INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: --------------' lOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS � | ---------------------------------------- ll ]L ll --------------------------------------------' � 0[ AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES----------------------------------. I i ID. AIR QUALITY-------------------------------------------- l2 {V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................... 14 � ]. Special Status Plant Species-----'' '' L4 � ' ----------------------------'' | 2= Special Status Animal Species--------------.-------------------- 15 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ____________________-----------------.20 | \/L GEOLOGY AND SOILS---------------------------------------22 � \/D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS--------------------------..24 ' VI}I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALIT ----------. �� � -------------------� � {X. LAND USE AND PLANNING-----------------------------------'28 � X. --------------------------------------.29 � XI. NOISE...............................................................................................................................................—29 � X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING----------------------------------'3l XI}I. PUBLIC SERVICES-----------------------------------------.3l | XlV --------------------------. .. ]l | ---^ '' ----------------' XV. -----------------------------------32 | XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-------------------------------33 | XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -------------------------.. 34 � SOURCES REFERENCED-------------------------------------------35 � � � � ( i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended(Public Resources Code 21,000, et seq.)that the following project: Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project, when implemented, will not have a significant impact on the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the construction of three trails.The proposed trails would increase public access to the northern and central parts of the preserve and provide new loop opportunities for hiking and dog walking. The proposed trails include: (1) A"ridgetop"trail 4 to 5-feet wide and approximately 2.4-miles in length.This proposed trail extends from the northwestern end of the existing Hassler Trail,near the Highway 280 Vista Point,to Polly Geraci Trail at the bottom of Cordilleras Creek. The first mile of trail is routed along the upper slopes near the ridge that defines the western boundary of the preserve. The trail switches back down moderate gradient slopes near the northern edge of the preserve at about 0.7-miles before extending to the low gradient alluvial-filled valley bottom of Cordilleras Creek. The construction of this trail will also include the installation of four small culverts and three short footbridges that will cross either ephemeral or intermittent streams. The project area is undeveloped and is characterized by natural vegetation. From its western end the alignment descends through coast live-oak woodland, climbs across a broad expanse of chamise-wooly manzanita chaparral, and passes through purple needlegrass grassland at its northernmost point. From there the trail descends through coyote brush-sticky monkeyflower scrub and coast live-oak woodland. The trail will be designed and constructed at a 4 to 5-foot width using a small bulldozer and mini-excavator; will typically not exceed a 10-percent gradient; and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control. (2) A"south canyon"trail 4 to 5-feet wide and approximately 0.7-miles in length. This proposed trail traverses the south-facing hillside below the existing Hassler Trail,connecting the upper end of Blue Oak Trail to the upper portion of Polly Geraci Trail. The construction of this trail will also include the installation of three small culverts that will cross either ephemeral or intermittent streams. This trail contours across 10 to 70-percent sideslopes and crosses a variety of habitats, including coyote brush- California sagebrush, chamise-sagebrush, coast live-oak woodland,blue-oak woodland,and native purple-needlegrass grassland. The trail will be designed and constructed at a 4 to 5-foot width using a small bulldozer and mini-excavator; will typically not exceed a 10-percent gradient; and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control. (3) A"connector"trail 4 to 5-feet in width and approximately 0.1-miles in length. This proposed trail follows an existing tractor trail and will connect the parking and staging area on the preserve to the southeastern end of Cordilleras Trail. This trail will be constructed on moderate gradient slopes and crosses coast live-oak woodland and California annual grassland. This trails project is being funded by a matching grant from the California Land and Water Conservation Fund Program and is intended to accommodate recreational hikers and bicyclists. FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Planning Department of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that: 1. The mitigation measures, as listed below and incorporated into the project, are adequate to mitigate the environmental effects to a less than significant level. 2. The project will not adversely affect agricultural resources,mineral resources,population and housing, utilities and service systems, or transportation/traffic in that such impacts simply do not apply to the proposed project, given the minor nature and rural, vegetated environment of the project and the low-intensity recreational uses that are associated with the project. 3. The project will not adversely affect land use or public services,based on project-specific factors that allow the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. 4. The project will not adversely affect aesthetics,air quality, geology&soils,hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,noise, or recreation,based on project-specific factors that reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 5. The project will not adversely affect biological resources or cultural resources,because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project has reduced the impacts to a less than significant level. 6. In addition, the project will not: • Create impacts that degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the project's fundamentally small scale, localized nature. • Create impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable,based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. • Create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly,based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has determined that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT Mitigation BIO-1. If trail construction is scheduled for the spring nesting season(February through July), a in Section pre-construction survey of the trail alignments will be conducted within two weeks prior to IV(a): beginning work. If active nests(with eggs or live young) are found, then no activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove those active nests until the young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Empty nests will be removed but if eggs or young are g tY ,p gg Y g present, nests will be left undisturbed until young birds leave. If active nests are found,trail alignments may be modified to avoid the nests. The new alignment will then also be surveyed for nest activity prior to clearing. Setback buffers to protect nesting birds will vary,depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer zones would be determined on a case-by- case basis, in consultation with a CDFG biologist. BIO-2. For optimum protection,the proposed trail shall be situated so that the woodrat nests are not readily visible to passing hikers and are in a sufficient distance from the trail so that leashed dogs do not dig into lodges,remove sticks from lodges or the nearby area, and are not close enough to mark territory on the lodges or inside the boundaries of the colony. To ensure that dogs using this part of the trail are kept on leash at all times, signs will be posted in both directions 2 I along the trail approaching the vicinity of the lodges with language that clearly stresses that a sensitive species is present and that dogs off-leash may cause damage to these species. Language on the signs will also indicate that dog use in the vicinity of the woodrat colony is probationary, and if dog owners fail to comply,the trail would be closed to all dog use. Low wire fencing that will not impede the movement of woodrats will also be installed along the bank of the trail to prevent dogs from impacting the lodges. The condition of and activity at the new nest built along the revised alignment will be reevaluated periodically prior to construction. If the situation changes significantly(the nest is enlarged and finished, and occupied), then a management measure(realignment of the trail,visual screening) that is appropriate to the situation and the specific location as determined by a qualified biologist will be implemented. If additional woodrat nests become evident at other locations during clearing and trail construction, a screen of vegetation will be left to minimize visibility of the nests from the trail. If existing vegetation is inadequate to act as an effective screen, it will be supplemented with additional plantings, using site-specific native shrubs in the planting. I Implementation of these management recommendations will avoid any significant impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Mitigation BIO-3. When feasible,the trail routes will be aligned to skirt the edge of the grassland,avoiding in Section the dense patches of needlegrass. In areas where the proposed trails will be built through the IV(b): grassland, the alignment will be fine-tuned,prior to construction,to avoid the densest clusters of the native perennial bunchgrasses. Exotic invasives will be controlled prior to and post construction. Bare soils that may remain after development of the new trail will be re-vegetated with native grasses and wildflowers collected from on-site sources, or with the same palette of species derived from other local populations. Revegetati on of bare soils with native e plants will minimize the spread of aggressive exotics into the needlegrass grassland. Mitigation CULT4. If archaeological resources are encountered during construction,every reasonable effort in Section shall be made to avoid the resources. If artifacts are found,the work shall stop in the area and V(b): within 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. A reasonable effort will be made by MROSD and an archaeologist to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect finds include fencing, covering remains with protective material and culturally sterile soil or plywood. If vandalism is a threat, 24-hour security shall be provided. During this evaluation period, construction operations outside of the find location can continue preferably with an archaeologist monitoring any subsurface excavations. If resource cannot be avoided, the archaeologist will develop an appropriate Action Plan for treatment within 48 hours to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. MROSD will not proceed with construction activities that could affect the discovery until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved. The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable archaeological field i techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current archaeological standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be 3 curated with an appropriate repository. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction. This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a)for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Mitigation CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines under §15064.5(e)into the in Section project construction requirements. §15064.5(e)requires the following steps be taken should V(d): human remains be encountered: "No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition,pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD).The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION California Department of Fish and Game California State Historic Preservation Officer INITIAL STUDY A copy of the initial study is attached. REVIEW PERIOD The Review Period is July 14, 2003 through August 12, 2003. If you have any comments about the Negative Declaration or Initial Study,have information that should be included, and/or disagree with the findings of our study as set forth in the proposed Negative Declaration,please submit your comments in writing no later than 5 p.m. on August 11, 2003 to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022. CONTACT PERSON Douglas Vu, Open Space Planner, 650-691-1200 Cathy W ury, Plannin anager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 4 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District INITIAL STUDY Project title: Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project Lead agency name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Contact person and phone number: Douglas Vu, (650) 691-1200 Project location: The project is situated at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, a 366-acre public preserve located in unincorporated San Mateo County, adjacent to the City of San Carlos, just northeast of the intersection of Highway 280 and Edgewood Road. The project area encompasses three 4 to 5-foot wide trail corridors that are approximately 2.4, 0.7, and 0.1 miles in length, respectively. Project APN: 050-470 -080 and 049 -380-040 Project sponsor's name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 General plan designation: Public Open Space, Zoning: Residential (RE/S-11) General Open Space Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project consists of the construction of three trails. The proposed trails would increase public access to the northern and central parts of the preserve and provide new loop opportunities for hiking and dog walking. The proposed trails include: (4) A "ridgetop" trail 4 to 5-feet wide and approximately 2.4-miles in length. This proposed trail extends from the northwestern end of the existing Hassler Trail, near the Highway 280 Vista Point, to Polly Geraci Trail at the bottom of Cordilleras Creek. The first mile of trail is routed along the upper slopes near the ridge that defines the western boundary of the preserve. The trail switches back down moderate gradient slopes near the northern edge of the preserve at about 0.7-miles before extending to the low gradient alluvial-filled valley bottom of Cordilleras Creek. The construction of this trail will also include the installation of four small culverts and three short footbridges that will cross either ephemeral or intermittent streams. The project area is undeveloped and is characterized by natural vegetation. From its western end the alignment descends through coast live-oak woodland, climbs across a broad expanse of chamise-wooly manzanita chaparral, and passes through purple needlegrass grassland at its northernmost point. From there the trail descends through coyote brush-sticky monkeyflower scrub and coast live-oak woodland. The trail will be designed and constructed at a 4 to 5-foot width using a small g g bulldozer and mini-excavator; will typically not exceed a 10-percent gradient; and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control. (5) A "south canyon" trail 4 to 5-feet wide and approximately 0.7-miles in length. This proposed trail traverses the south-facing hillside below the existing Hassler Trail, connecting the upper end of Blue Oak Trail to the upper portion of Polly Geraci Trail. The construction of this trail will also 5 include the installation of three small culverts that will cross either ephemeral or intermittent streams. This trail contours across 10 to 70-percent sideslopes and crosses a variety of habitats, including coyote brush-California sagebrush, chamise-sagebrush, coast live-oak woodland, blue- oak woodland, and native purple-needlegrass grassland. The trail will be designed and constructed at a 4 to 5-foot width using a small bulldozer and mini-excavator; will typically not exceed a 1 0-percent gradient; and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control, (6) A 'connector" trail 4 to 5-feet in width and approximately 0.1-miles in length. This proposed trail follows an existing tractor trail and will connect the parking and staging area on the preserve to the southeastern end of Cordilleras Trail. This trail will be constructed on moderate gradient slopes and crosses coast live-oak woodland and California annual grassland. This trails project is being funded by a matching grant from the California Land and Water Conservation Fund Program and is intended to accommodate recreational hikers. SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS Upon District Board certification of this negative declaration, the following actions will occur: • Application for California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Permit • Application for San Mateo County Grading and Building Permit for Foot Bridges • Application for Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), if required • Construction of the project Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The project is bounded to the south by Edgewood Road and Edgewood County Park, to the east by developed residential neighborhoods in the City of San Carlos, to the north and northwest are open space lands owned by the California Public Utilities Commission and managed by the San Francisco Water Department, and to the west by Highway 280 and its right-of-way. The project is located within Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, a 366-acre preserve owned and managed by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, containing more than 3 miles of hiking trails. The property is located in unincorporated San Mateo County, adjacent the southwest limits of the City of San Carlos along Edgewood Road and west of Highway 280. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Permit • San Mateo County Grading and Building Permit for Foot Bridges • Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), if required Document availability: All documents referenced in the Initial Study are available for review from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District administrative office at the address listed above. 6 92 > San a Mateo daP/ C 92 im S pve' an Carlos San Carlos v San Francisco Watershed ge ` Lands a Edmonds Rd. c. i FdgeH,00dRa �'` v Edgewood County Park Pie' l S r1 Golden to National \e,etSoo Recreation Area Redwood �catm Hill B��a city ziso Huddart County Park PULGAS RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Woodside LOCATION MAP Kings, Teague Hill Open Space 0 1 Mile Preserve a ?4 Figure 1. Regional Location Map PROJECT AREA MAP PULGAS RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ' ` y , Proposed R d L. 9e-To p Trail �- N Tcatl «tom_ ti- µgssler •,_� _. .... Td, �cldlliP • ,. Proposed r> Proposed South i Connector Canyon Trail '�� T .o Trail aF w i Miles 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Figure 2. Project Area Map I 8 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. _7/10/03 Signat e Date Cathy Woodbury, Planning_Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Printed Name For 9 INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less Than Significant Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS For Sources, refer to page 35 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than I. AESTHETICS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the project: 1(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Explanation: (Sources: 1, 2, 3). The proposed trails will be constructed similarly to other trails already existing at the preserve. They will offer views from the ridge along the northern portion of the preserve and along the south-facing canyon of the central part of the preserve. The characteristic steep topography and dense surrounding vegetation will restrict views within the project area to the trail corridors and to the immediate surroundings. The trails will also be constructed at a 4 to 5-foot width. These factors also prevent views into the project area from surrounding locations. As a result, the project would not have a substantial effect on scenic values. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact incorporation 1(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but x not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Explanation: (Sources: 4, 5). The project area is neither located within a state or county scenic highway corridor. The surrounding topography and heavy vegetation cover will conceal the project area. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Im act Impact I(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or El El x quality of the site and its surroundings? Explanation: (Sources: 1,2, 3). The project includes three trails constructed at 4 to 5-foot widths that generally follow the natural contours of the existing hillside and canyons. Even though no large trees will be removed during trail construction, due to the forest canopy consisting of live-oak woodland and dense vegetation predominated by chamise, wooly manzanita chaparral, and coyote brush, views in the project area are limited to the immediate surroundings and short segments of trail. All disturbed areas during construction will re re-vegetated and/or re-seeded with natives species once the project is complete. As a g p p l p result, the project will have a less than significant effect on the visual quality or character of the site. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Impact Impact I(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which x would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Explanation: (Source: 6).The proposed project will not include new buildings or lighting facilities. District Ordinance 93-1, Section 805.2 prohibits the use of the preserve by the public during the nighttime. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on 11 agriculture and farmland. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco oration Im act Impact 11(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 11(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ Williamson Act contract? 11(c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Explanations for a, b, and c: (Sources: 7, 8, 9, 10). The District acquired the two subject parcels in 1983 and 2000 and dedicated them for public open space use in 1985 and 2000, respectively. These parcels make up Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve and are open for public recreational use. No change in land use is proposed as part of this project. The properties were not under Williamson Act contracts when the District acquired them. Moreover, the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps for the project vicinity indicate that no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance would be disturbed by the project. The project area is zoned Residential (RE/S-11). San Mateo County includes outdoor public recreation use as an allowed use for RE/S-11 districts. Ill. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 111(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Elx applicable air quality plan? Explanation: (Source: 6). The project does not involve an expansion of the preserve's non-motorized recreational trail uses, which themselves do not generate odors, dust, or other air pollutant emissions that conflict with the applicable air quality plan. Under District Ordinance 96-1, operation of motor vehicles by the public within the preserve is prohibited, thus limiting motor vehicle emissions to ranger patrol and maintenance vehicles. No expansion of maintenance or patrol levels would be required by the project. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incor oration 111(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 13 x 13 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Explanation: (Sources: 6, 11, 12, 13, 14).The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have each developed ozone and respiratory particulate matter (PM10) standards to identify acceptable levels of short-term and long-term air pollution. The project does not involve an increase in motor vehicle operation, often a significant contributor to ozone pollution level violations. The project would therefore not contribute substantially to projected ozone violations due to vehicle emissions. However, other major sources for PM10 pollution include dust from construction. 12 The project is located within San Mateo County, which is part of the larger San Francisco Bay Area Basin (Bay Area), a region that has met national short-and long-term PM10 Standards since 1992. According to available 1988-1997 data from the ARB, San Mateo County has also consistently met the more stringent state standards for long-term (annual mean) PM10 exposure levels, and experienced a marked decline in short-term (24-hour) PM10 concentrations between 1990 and 1996. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has further noted that the highest PM10 concentrations in the Bay Area are generally recorded in the winter, especially during the evening and night hours due to high use levels of wood burning stoves and fireplaces. The timing of the proposed project would avoid these periods of high PM10 emissions, since the construction-related earthmoving activities would occur during the daylight hours of summer and fall. Since the project is small-scale in nature, any potential dust emissions resulting from the project would be localized and limited to the short-term construction period. Therefore, the project would not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation in the Bay Area. Potentially Less Than Less Than significant Significant with Significant No Impact mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 111(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Explanation: (Sources: 11, 13, 14). As discussed in 111(b), the small scale nature of the project may generate short-term, localized dust emissions, These emissions may result in only a temporary and negligible increase in local PM10 concentrations during the construction period and are not expected to create a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 pollution as regulated under federal or state ambient air quality standards. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imeact Inco!poration Impact Imeact 111(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El 0 Im 1:1 concentrations? Explanation: (Sources: 11, 13). According to the BAAQMD, "sensitive receptors" include children, the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from asthma or bronchitis. The project area is located within an open space preserve that offers more than three (3) miles of public trails for hiking. Individuals who are visiting the preserve for recreation and exercise may be considered at a higher risk of suffering adverse health effects from the inhalation of minute dust particles classified as PM10, which are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest part of the lungs. However, since the project area would be closed to all public use during construction activities, persons exercising in the preserve would be restricted from accessing the construction site and therefore, and therefore would not be exposed to any potentially localized elevations of PM10 levels. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imeact Incorporation Imeact ImEact 11111(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Explanation: (Source: 1). Given that the intent of the project is to provide low-intensity, non-motorized 13 recreational use of the area, which does not emit objectionable odors, the project would not create any offensive or objectionable odors. The temporary trail construction activities are also not expected to create any objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporation Im act Im act IV(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or x through habitat modifications on an species identified as a g Y p candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? Explanation: (Sources: 15, 16, 17, 18). The project area consists of native and annual grasslands, introduced perennial grassland, various types of shrublands, oak woodlands, ruderal or weedy types, and invasive exotics. The site-specific vegetation types are based on the plant community classification system of Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf(1995) with reference to the list of terrestrial natural communities developed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CNDDB, 2002). A qualified biologist was hired to conduct a natural resource inventory of the preserve (Vegetation and Wildlife Inventory for Proposed Trail Alignments, prepared by Diane Renshaw,July 10, 2003). Each proposed trail alignment was evaluated for the presence or potential occurrence of sensitive plant and animal species. Potential impacts associated with trail location and construction and use by hikers and dogs were identified and evaluated. These potential impacts include disturbance of wildlife, removal or disruption of sensitive plants and plant communities, interference with revegetation efforts, and spread of exotics into sensitive plant or wildlife habitat. Surveys were conducted in March,June, and July of 2003. In addition to field surveys the biologist consulted the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) records for the Woodside 7.5' quadrangle for San Mateo County for special status species and natural community occurrences in the project vicinity (CNDDB, 1999 and 2003), contacted and interviewed botanists and wildlife biologists knowledgeable about this area for information on species known to them to exist at the site or having the potential to occur there, and reviewed personal records and field notes from reconnaissance level survey work in the San Francisco Water District watershed lands. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS SPECIES Surveys in March and June 2003 indicated the presence of only one special status plant species — Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis-a CNPS List 1 b species) that grows at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. Its known location at the head of the drainage on the southeast part of the preserve was visited on March 5. No other individuals or populations of Dirca were found in oak woodland understory or along any part of the trail alignments. Therefore, no significant impact is expected. White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora - FE, CE), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria lihacea - (FSC, CNPS List 1 B), and San Francisco campion (Silene verecunda ssp. Verecunda- FSC, CNPS 1 B) were visited or otherwise verified as being in bloom at the time of the March 2003 site visits. None of these species were seen along the trail alignments or in any other part of the site visited during the field work for this project. 14 Arcuate bush-mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus=M. fasciculatus -CNPS List 1 B). The bush-mallow was reported previously at the preserve but locational information is missing in MROSD records. Chaparral along the Northern trail would be potential habitat for the bush-mallow. In June 2003, the portion of the ridgetop trail that passes through the chamise —woollyleaf manzanita chaparral community was surveyed for arcuate bush mallow. No evidence of the bush mallow was found on the proposed trail. Michael's rein orchid (Piperia michaelii- CNPS List 4)- In June, 2003, the westernmost portion of the ridgetop trail had been determined and flagged in the field, and was surveyed for Michael's rein orchid. No evidence of this or any other orchid was found along or near the proposed trail alignment. Other special status plants that occur at nearby Edgewood Park, where they are associated with clay or serpentine soils, are not expected at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. SPECIAL STATUS BIRDS It is possible that loggerhead shrikes, horned larks, or white-tailed kites might use the grassland habitat at the site for foraging. The proposed trails in and around grassland habitat at the Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve is not expected to have a significant affect on grassland foragers, because the grassland at the preserve is relatively small and fragmented and there are many acres of more extensive grassland nearby that provide superior foraging and hunting habitat. No other special status birds are expected at the site. Impacts to special-status bird species: Although there was no evidence of present or past bird nesting activity observed along the trail alignments during the March and June 2003 site evaluations, trees and shrubs at the site are considered potential nesting habitat for migratory songbirds protected by the U. S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Trees are potential nesting and roosting habitat for various hawks and owls, designated as fully protected species by the California Department of Fish and Game Code. If trail construction is scheduled for the spring nesting season (February through July), removal of vegetation could destroy active nests, and construction activity could disturb and disrupt successful nesting of raptors. The proposed alignments minimize or avoid tree and brush removal to the greatest extent possible. Some removal of vegetation is unavoidable, however. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to special-status bird species: BIO-1. If trail construction is scheduled for the spring nesting season (February through July), a pre- construction survey of the trail alignments will be conducted within two weeks prior to beginning work. If active nests (with eggs or live young) are found, then no activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove those active nests until the young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Empty nests will be removed, but if eggs or young are present, nests will be left undisturbed until young birds leave. If active nests are found, trail alignments may be modified to avoid the nests. The new alignment will then also be surveyed for nest activity prior to clearing. Setback buffers to protect nesting birds will vary, depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer zones would be determined on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with a CDFG biologist. SPECIAL STATUS REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS There is no suitable habitat at the project site for California red-legged frog (CRLF), Rana aurora draytonii. Neither the small wetland nor the seasonal streams at Pulgas Ridge Preserve provide suitable breeding habitat for CRLF. Furthermore, the preserve is located at the very upper reaches of the Cordilleras Creek watershed, and there are no suitable breeding ponds nearby, so it is very unlikely that the preserve drainages would be used by CRLF for moving or dispersing into new or adjacent territory. There is no suitable aquatic habitat at the site for San Francisco garter snake or western pond turtle. 15 California tiger salamanders (CTS) breed in seasonal ponds in grassland. There is no suitable CTS habitat in the grasslands at the Pulgas Ridge preserve. SPECIAL STATUS INVERTEBRATES Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle is found in ponds, and both the Edgewood blind harvestman and the Bay checkerspot butterfly are associated with serpentine habitat. There is no appropriate habitat at the site. SPECIAL STATUS MAMMALS Although the oak woodland at this particular site is not ideal habitat for the listed bats reported from the general area, it is not impossible that one or more could be present at, or at least visit the oak woodland habitat Pulgas Ridge. However, since construction and use of the proposed trails would have minimal effect on bat habitat in the oak woodland, additional survey work to census the local bat population is not recommended at this time. Grassland habitat at Pulgas Ridge is most likely not extensive enough to support a worthwhile prey population for American badgers (Taxidea taxus). No badger diggings or burrows were seen in the grasslands near the trail alignments. One sensitive mammal, the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), is conspicuously present in the brushlands and in the understory of the coast live oak woodlands at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes annectens, FSC, CSC) The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a State and Federal species of concern. Dusky-footed woodrats are small mammals that build mounded stick lodges, sometimes in trees but more usually next to trees on the ground. The species occupy a variety of brushy and forested habitats. Houses observed at Pulgas Ridge were on the ground, in dense poison oak. They are primarily herbivorous, eating foliage and other parts of woody plants, especially coast live oak. Woodrats are primarily nocturnal, and appear to avoid light, even bright moonlight. Dusky-footed woodrats live in colonies of three to fifteen or more nests. Availability of stick houses appears to limit the population size, and competition for established nests is significant. Impacts to San Francisco dusky footed woodrat: Woodrat nest surveys along the proposed trails and in their vicinity were conducted in March, June and July, 2003. A survey in March identified a woodrat colony that includes at least five and as many as a dozen or more stick lodges of varying sizes, at a location roughly 1000 feet south of the northern property line. These lodges are located on the hillside below a large oak at a rock outcrop in a surrounding habitat of dense poison oak. Three potential impacts are associated with building a trail in the vicinity of woodrat nests or colony: (1) construction of a trail through suitable habitat may destroy existing nests and has the potential to disrupt movement corridors that connect various lodges in this colony; (2) Human use of the trail through the colony may further disrupt the woodrat movement between lodges, but would probably have minimal impact otherwise, since woodrats are largely nocturnal and the proposed trail use will be diurnal; (3) Dogs traveling along the trail could be expected to urinate and mark territory on the lodges next to the path, disrupting the woodrat scent markings and intruding on the established woodrat environment within the colony. Leashed dogs could also dig into and damage stick nests. Unleashed dogs could be expected 16 to do both these things and possibly kill or injure individual woodrats, dismantle mounds, and carry nesting sticks away from the site. A few solitary woodrat lodges were also observed during the June survey in the coast live oak understory along the eastern and western segments of this trail. Because these nests are at some distance from the trail, and because the trail does not appear to pass through a colony or cross over any of the lodges, the impacts from trail construction, human use, and leashed dogs would be less than significant. The proposed trail was realigned to avoid damage to all stick lodges by circling around the existing woodrat colony and their suitable habitat and avoiding cutting through or passing between the lodges. The newly proposed trail alignment designed by MROSD to avoid impacts to woodrats and woodrat habitat was visited on July 8, 2003 by a qualified biologist. The new alignment skirts the western edge of the preferred woodrat habitat (poison oak, coast live oak, monkeyflower community) and is situated primarily in the adjacent chamise and manzanita scrub. For optimum protection, the proposed trail is situated so that the woodrat nests are not readily visible to passing hikers and are in a sufficient distance from the trail so that leashed dogs do not dig into lodges, do not remove sticks from lodges or the nearby area, and are not close enough to mark territory on the lodges or inside the boundaries of the colony. Two woodrat houses were observed along the proposed alignment during the July 8 site visit: 1) The first house (or nest) is in the cleared alignment adjacent to the trail, and was not present two weeks previously when the alignment was evaluated by MROSD staff. This structure is fairly primitive in shape, measuring roughly 32 inches by 45 inches at the broad base, and standing less than 10 inches tall. In contrast the average basal diameter of an established stick house is 60 inches, and its average height is 46 inches. This small nest next to the alignment is flat on top, in contrast with the more typical conical or rounded roof of an established nest. The sudden appearance of this apparently incomplete or unfinished stick nest at the same time of year that young of the year are dispersing may mean that it is a new or "practice" nest, built by a yearling woodrat looking for habitation. The immediate availability of building materials supplied by the woody stems cleared from the new alignment may simply be tempting to adult rats as well. In either case, the location of this nest in a clearing in the chaparral and in full sun contraindicates its use as a permanent house. Potential impacts to this newly discovered woodrat nest are likely to be less than significant. This house is at the edge of the colony, and a new trail passing by is not likely to cut off the house from other woodrat habitations. It is a simple, uncomplicated structure that will not be inhabited during the summer and is not a many-chambered, occupied nest that will be used year- round, year after year. Yet, the condition of and activity at this nest will be reevaluated periodically prior to construction. (2) The second woodrat nest observed along the newly propo sed alignment is in poison oak and oak woodland habitat. This house is well supported and shaded by surrounding vegetation, and is a typical occupied stick house in size and shape. The alignment in the immediate area of the nest was relocated slightly to reduce the visibility of the stick nest from the trail, and the more general measures recommended have also been implemented. The most significant potential threat to dusky-footed woodrats is from unleashed dogs, which would almost certainly disrupt the woodrat colony, damage or destroy lodges, mark territory, and kill or harass individual woodrats. However, as this trail will be an on-leash dog trail and off-leashed dogs will not be 17 allowed on the trail, impacts on the woodrats are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: B1O-2. For optimum protection, the proposed trail shall be situated so that the woodrat nests are not readily visible to passing hikers and are in a sufficient distance from the trail so that leashed dogs do not dig into lodges, remove sticks from lodges or the nearby area, and are not close enough to mark territory on the lodges or inside the boundaries of the colony. To ensure that dogs using this part of the trail are kept on leash at all times, signs will be posted in both directions along the trail approaching the vicinity of the lodges with language that clearly stresses that a sensitive species is present and that dogs off-leash may cause damage to these species. Language on the signs will also indicate that dog use in the vicinity of the woodrat colony is probationary, and if dog owners fail to comply, the trail would be closed to all dog use. Low wire fencing that will not impede the movement of woodrats will also be installed along the bank of the trail to prevent dogs from impacting the lodges. The condition of and activity at the new nest built along the revised alignment will be reevaluated periodically prior to construction. If the situation changes significantly (the nest is enlarged and finished, and occupied), then a management measure (realignment of the trail, visual screening) that is appropriate to the situation and the specific location as determined by a qualified biologist will be implemented. If additional woodrat nests become evident at other locations during clearing and trail construction, a screen of vegetation will be left to minimize visibility of the nests from the trail. If existing vegetation is inadequate to act as an effective screen, it will be supplemented with additional plantings, using site- specific native shrubs in the planting. Implementation of these management recommendations will avoid any g p significant impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporation Im act Im act IV(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat x11 El or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Explanation: (Source: 15). California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintains a list of sensitive terrestrial natural communities, classified as such on the basis of rarity or threat. A qualified biologist conducted field surveys on March and June 2003 and identified two distinct associations of the purple needlegrass series, a sensitive natural community: (1) purple needlegrass association, and (2) mixed California annual grassland - purple needlegrass association. Portions of the proposed trails' alignments cross one or more of these purple needlegrass grasslands. Impacts to Purple Needlegrass Grassland: Ground disturbance associated with the construction of the trails and the use of the trail could potentially result in removing some of the native grassland and might promote the spread of exotic invasive into the grassland. Bare mineral soils that result from grading and trail construction are ideal seedbeds for aggressive exotics, and could encourage the establishment and spread of undesirable weeds along the new trails into currently uninfested parts of the preserve. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to Purple Needlegrass Grassland: B1O-3. When feasible, the trail routes will be aligned to skirt the edge of the grassland, avoiding the dense patches of needlegrass. in areas where the proposed trails will be built through the grassland, the 18 alignment will be fine-tuned, prior to construction, to avoid the densest clusters of the native perennial bunchgrasses. Exotic invasives will be controlled prior to and post construction. Bare soils that may remain after development of the new trail will be re-vegetated with native grasses and wildflowers collected from on- site sources, or with the same palette of species derived from other local populations. Revegetation of bare soils with native plants will minimize the spread of aggressive exotics into the needlegrass grassland. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Im act Impact IWO Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected El El FX1 El wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Explanation: (Source: 15). The proposed project is not in the vicinity of, and will not impact any wetland areas and therefore will not have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Impact Im act IV(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native x resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Explanation: (Source: 15). The project, which includes trail construction, installation of seven small culverts crossing ephemeral and intermittent streams, and three short foot bridges will not interfere with wildlife movement corridors or impede wildlife movement or wildlife nursery sites including movements of any fish. The ephemeral and intermittent streams where the culverts will be installed are not fish bearing, and therefore will not impede the movement of any fish. The low-intensity recreational trails will not be fenced and do not act as a barrier to wildlife movement. The trail tread is composed of native soil and is not paved. The new bridges will be located well above high water levels. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact g Impact Impact i Incorporation III IV(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting x biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Explanation: (Sources: 19,20,21).The project insures the protection of species of concern identified in the project site and their habitat, as well as the protection of a natural community of concern. Habitat protection is consistent with local San Mateo County maintenance standards, and includes minimizing impact to habitat quality, water quality, providing erosion control and revegetation on disturbed soils, preserving and promoting growth of native vegetation, and discouraging propagation of non-native and invasive plant species. Furthermore, the project does not include the removal of any trees. 19 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact incorporation IWO Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat x Conservation PI an Natural Community Conservation vation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Explanation: (Sources: 22,23). No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan is known to apply to the project area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor oration Impact Im act V(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of L1 L1 x 11 a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? Explanation: (Source: 24). No above-grade structures are present within the project area. In an effort to identify cultural and historical resources in the project area, an archaeological consultant conducted a literature review and records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University. The Native American Heritage Commission and Native American representatives were also contacted. The records and archive search indicated that the project area contained no recorded Native American or historic cultural resources within the project area and its one-quarter mile search radius. The State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with all of these findings. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporation Impact Im act V(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of x an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Explanation: (Source: 24).The records search performed by NWIC of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University did not identify any archaeological or historic resources. However, there is a remote possibility that Native Americans of the Ohlone group may have inhabited the project area at the time of Spanish entry into the Bay region. The Ohlone were hunter-gatherers, utilizing both semi-permanent villages and more specialized seasonal camps, and a wide range of hunting and foraging strategies. Impacts: Since the construction of trail involves ground disturbance in an area with a remote possibility of cultural resources, the project may accidentally disturb unknown archaeological resources. Archeological resources include buried features such as stone or adobe foundations or walls, wooden remains with square nails, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, and heat-affected rock. Mitigation incorporated into project: g p p 1 CULT-1. If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, every reasonable effort shall be made to avoidresources. the e esou ces. If artifacts are found, the work shall stop in the area and within 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. A reasonable effort will be made by MROSD and an archaeologist to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is 20 determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect finds include fencing, covering remains with protective material and culturally sterile soil or plywood. If vandalism is a threat, 24-hour security shall be provided. During this evaluation period, construction operations outside of the find location can continue preferably with an archaeologist monitoring any subsurface excavations. If resource cannot be avoided, the archaeologist will develop an appropriate Action Plan for treatment within 48 hours to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. MROSD will not proceed with construction activities that could affect the discovery until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved. The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable archaeological field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current archaeological standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction. This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a) for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation V(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological El U 19 resource or site or unique geologic feature? Explanation: (Source: 24). No unique paleontological resources are known to exist within the project area. The mitigation under section V(b) calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for destroying previously unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level. The proposed project will not substantially change the overall landform and therefore the uniqueness of any geologic feature will not be significantly impacted by the project. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact V(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred El 19 L1 El outside of formal cemeteries? Explanation: (Source: 24). No human remains are known to exist within the project area. However, given the possibility of prehistoric resources, as discussed under V(b) above, unknown human remains may be present in the project area. 21 Impacts: Since the construction of the project involves ground disturbance in an area with a possibility of archaeological resources, the project may accidentally disturb unknown human remains. Mitigation incorporated into project: The mitigation under section V(b) calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for disturbance to human remains. CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines under §15064.5(e) into the project construction requirements. §15064.5(e) requires the following steps be taken should human remains be encountered: "No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." VI. GEOLOGYANDSOILS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporation Impact Im act VI(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 0 X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ VI(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ ❑ ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Explanation for a and c: (Sources: 25, 26). The proposed project is located within a near-wilderness unpopulated setting. No structures for human occupancy are pro posed.osed. A engineering-geologic evaluation of the project has been conducted to identify engineering methods to reduce the potential for trail failure due to geological hazards (Engineering Geologic Investigation of the Proposed Trails and Staging Area at Pulgas Ridge, Tim Best, CEG, July 2003). Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve is located less than 1 mile east of the active San Andreas Fault zone and is the closest fault to the property with a high probability of generating a large magnitude earthquake in the next 50 years. Peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is reported to be about 0.8g. High ground accelerations associated with fault rupture along fault system is 22 likely a contributing factor if not dominant for movement on many of the deep-seated landslides found in the area. Two old faults cross the preserve that juxtaposes Whiskey Hill sandstone against Franciscan Rocks. Neither of these faults are reported to be active and do not appear to pose a geologic hazard to the project. The project site lies in a tectonically active region of the coast range in northern California. Compression associated with the nearby San Andreas Fault Zone has caused in a high rate of tectonic uplift, resulting in relatively high denudation rates. The geomorphology of the plan area is consistent with both shallow and deep-seated landsliding: Shallow landsliding and stream bank erosion are locally present along the steep streamside slopes within the preserve. Most of these rainfall-activated failures are shallow debris slides and channel bank failures restricted to near surface soils and weathered bedrock. Most failures are very small, mobilizing less than 10 cy of material. Most observed shallow landslides occurred on slopes over 60%. The proposed trails avoid steep slopes to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, where proposed trail will be required to cross the head of an old/relic shallow landslide scar or will cross slopes greater than 60%, there is a potential for small scale shallow slope failures during adverse climatic or seismic events. The most likely scenario will be simple slumps occurring along the cutbank requiring the trail tread to be cleared of debris. Large scale slope failures are not expected. Future slide movement is unlikely to result in harm to users of the trail nor result in substantial sediment delivery to streams. Several possible deep-seated bedrock landslides also underlie portions of the proposed trail alignments. The slides were identified in the aerial photographs and on the ground surface by broad arcuate scarps and subtle mid-slope benches on what is otherwise moderately to sloping terrain. The larger slides are comprised of several smaller slide blocks that coalesce or are nested together to form a larger landslide complex. Many of these slides appear to be initiated or reactivated by strong ground motions during earthquakes based on observations following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The morphology of the deep-seated slides are typically subdued and none of the slides show obvious signs of recent or active movement such as fresh cracks, leaning trees or offset road prisms. These slides are interpreted to dormant mature or dormant relic per. There is a potential, albeit small, that future small-scale displacement could occur in the event of a very large magnitude earthquake on a nearby fault (e.g. San Andreas Fault) or during a very large storm such as not occurred in historic times. It is not feasible to quantify this risk since such an analysis would require extensive drilling and slope stability modeling that would exceed the cost of the trail building, and even then the results may not be certain. Moreover, such an analysis is not required or warranted given the nature of the trail for recreational use in a remote area and since movement of the slide is unlikely to result in harm to users of the trail. The proposed trails are to be constructed at a relatively narrow (4-5-foot) width resulting in small cuts and fills. As a result, the trail should have little impact on these slides since the mass balance and hydrology of the slide will not be substantially altered. Therefore, the increase risk of deep-seated landsliding as a result of the construction of the trails is considered to be low. In addition, the District routinely monitors project area trails and provides regular maintenance to avoid and minimize public exposure to hazardous geologic conditions. Therefore the likelihood for adverse effects to people or structures from seismic ground shaking or surface failure is less than significant. Given the low intensityrecreational nature of the trail and bride the remotes tin h low i et the o potential for bridge, g, p landslide movement, and the inclusion of engineering recommendations, the project is not expected to pose a substantial risk of exposing people or structures to hazards resulting from landslides, or increase landslide instability. 23 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco oration Im act Im act VI(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 x 13 Explanation: (Sources: 19,25, 27, 28,29). The preserve is located within the 650-acre headwater watershed of Cordilleras Creek. Precipitation in the watershed is highly seasonal, with 90% falling between October and April. Based on site-specific mapping and observations, the site soils are naturally well drained and very highly susceptible to erosion. Trail drainage improvements as recommended by the project engineering geologist will be installed to ensure positive surface drainage and minimize the potential for soil erosion. These improvements include the installation of adequately sized and spaced cross drains, armoring outside edges of trail with on site rock, installation of water bars, outsloping the trail prism, and installing frequent dips. Also, re-seeding and mulching of exposed soil surfaces are additional improvements that can be made. Most importantly, the project is scheduled for construction during the typical dry season Qune 1-October 15) and the site will be fully restored prior to the onset of rains to avoid erosion due to surface flows. Moreover, the project includes a number of erosion control, site restoration, and dust suppression guidelines; these measures are sufficient to reduce the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to less than significant levels. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Miti ation Impact g Impact Impact Incorporation VI(d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B x of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Explanation: (Source: 25). Based on site observations, the site soils have low plasticity, and have a low potential for expansion. No signs of highly expansive soils (e.g. shrinkage cracks) were observed. The project does not include construction of structures that could be significantly affected by expansive soils and given the open space setting of the project area and the lack of buildings or other habitable structures, no substantial risk to preserve users or property is expected due to expansive soils. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Im act Impact VI(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of El L1 Im septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Explanation: Source: 1 . The project area is located in heavily p ( ) p � a ea y vegetated unimproved area and no septic tanks or disposal systems are pr o osed as part of the project. Moreover, no septic tanks or disposal systems are known to exist in the project area. Y p 1 VI1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Impact Im act VII(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the x environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Explanation: (Source: 6). The District does not routinely transport or use hazardous materials in the project area. District Ordinance 93-1, Section 409.2 prohibits persons from possessing or using harmful substances on District lands. 24 n Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporation Im act Im act VII(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the IJ x 11 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Explanation: (Source: 6). Under District Ordinance 93-1, operation of unauthorized motor vehicles within the preserve is prohibited, restricting general public use of the preserve to low-intensity, non-motorized, and non-emitting uses including hiking. Incidental motor vehicle oil and gas leaks are very rare and limited to the infrequent use of District ranger and maintenance vehicles and occasional emergency responders such as the California Department of Forestry. The construction phase of the project includes best management practices to ensure that care is taken to avoid spills and properly manage hazardous materials to prevent a release of hazardous materials into the environment. The risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment is therefore considered less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco oration Im act Im act V11(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 0 0 L1 x acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Explanation: (Source: 30).The project area is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Heather School is located approximately one mile east of the project are a. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No g g g Im act Incorporation Impact Im act III V11(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 0 0 x hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Explanation: (Source: 31).The project area is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites. No EPA regulated facilities are found in the project area. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Im act Im act VII(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, L1 0 0 19 where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VII(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Explanation for a and f: (Source: 30). The project is neither within an airport land use plan, within two miles of an airport, nor within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 25 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Im act VII(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an L1 El 0 x adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Explanation: (Source: 1).The project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The project proposes to provide low-intensity recreation trails for public use. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact incorporation VII(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, El X 11 injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Explanation: (Sources: 6, 32). The project is in an undeveloped portion of San Mateo County adjacent to the City of San Carlos. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designates the project areas as lying within a zone of moderate fire hazard severity, based on local vegetation type (fuel loading), slope and weather. This designation notwithstanding, the project would not change the degree of exposure to wildfires, as it involves the construction of public trails and the installation of three small pedestrian bridges. The project is within an existing preserve with existing trails open to the public. The level of exposure of people and trail-related structures to wildland fires remains the same with or without the project. In addition, District Ordinance 93-1 Section 404 prohibits fires and smoking on District lands. District Rangers trained in fire-fighting techniques and carrying fire suppression equipment regularly patrol the preserve. District staff generally serves as first responder to fire emergencies, with the primary fire protection falling to the California Department of Forestry, County Fire Departments, and municipal fire protection agencies. Vlll.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Im act Im act VIII(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 0 L1 x El requirements? VIII(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? VIII(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation for a, c, and f: (Sources: 19, 25, 27, 29). These three checklist items are interrelated and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. The project involves construction of 3.25 lineal miles of trail. No effluent waste would be discharged as a result of this project. The project includes a number of trail drainage improvements and erosion prevention measures as outlined in the engineering geologic investigation report and according to MROSD standards (Engineering Geologic Investigation of the Proposed Trails and Staging Area at Pulgas Ridge, Tim Best, CEG, July 2003). All exposed soil surfaces in the work area and any other areas disturbed will be seeded and mulched. During construction, erosion control measures will be implemented to minimize storm water runoff from the construction site, pursuant to applicable regulations and permits. 26 Alteration of drainage patterns can be of concern where the project would disturb or grade steep lands adjacent to the trail, where the trail crosses existing water concentrations (i.e. ephemeral creeks or less- distinct swales), or where trails have the potential to collect and concentrate stormwater, such as steep trails or inside ditches. The drainage improvement and erosion prevention features included in the project avoid the concentration of surface runoff that could result in erosion or siltation and allow the project to avoid substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site, thus reducing the potential impact under item VIII(c) to a less than significant level. Sediment in runoff can also be the result of wind and water erosion. As discussed in Section III(b), the project's dust suppression actions would minimize the possible water quality effects of wind erosion. As discussed in Section VI(b), the project would be constructed in the dry season and restored prior to the onset of rains to avoid erosion due to surface runoff. Potential water quality impacts from construction accidents involving the release of hazardous materials are discussed in Section VII(b). The project also includes a number of additional erosion control guidelines to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. Therefore, potential for the project to otherwise substantially degrade water quality is reduced to a less than significant level. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact incorporation VI11(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0x substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Explanation: (Source: 1). Water is not provided on District trails. The project will not pump groundwater and does not interfere with groundwater recharge. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor oration Im act Im act V111(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0x site or area, $ row including through the alteration of the course f g co se o a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? VI11(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ ❑ ❑ the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? VI11(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, ❑ ❑ Z ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? VIII(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Explanation for d, e, h, and is (Source: 25). These four checklist items are interrelated and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. The preserve is located within the 650-acre headwaters of Cordilleras Creek. Precipitation in the watershed is highly seasonal, with 90% falling between October and April. The extensive open space lands surrounding the project provide a vegetated buffer for the 27 project and allow rain to percolate into the ground rather than running off rapidly. The project adds no additional impervious surfaces and would not substantially alter the site drainage patterns or increase the amount of runoff. No polluted runoff sources will be introduced by the project. Flooding problems have been reported in the downstream portion of Cordilleras Creek in Redwood City and San Carlos. Within the preserve significant flooding has not been reported although geomorphic evidence suggests that portions of the Cordilleras Creek valley bottom may inundated for short periods of time during a 1 00-year flood flow. The proposed project will be required to cross several small intermittent to ephemeral streams, and will involve the construction of seven small culverts and three foot bridges at. All proposed stream crossings have been designed to accommodate a 100-year flood flow. The proposed trail is unlikely to have any impact on peak flows. The proposed project will not place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that might impede flood flows. Per standard District practice, District personnel regularly check drainage structures during and after storms, provide signage and barricades if needed, and perform maintenance as needed to ensure proper functioning and reduce the possibility that the project would expose people to significant flood risks. Therefore, potential for the project to result in flooding, expose people to flooding risks, exceed the capacity of drainage systems, or impede flood flows is reduced to a less than significant level. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incoreoration lm2act Impact— VIII(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as L1 L1 El Z mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Explanation: (Source: 1). The project does not involve housing. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No 117n2act Incorporation Imeact Impact VIII(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? L1 0 Z 1:1 Explanation: (Sources: 25, 30). The project is situated at approximately 1,800 feet above mean sea level. Seiche or tsunamis would have no impact on the site. Mudflows are a form of landsliding known as debris flows. These instabilities generally form in thick surficial deposits on steep to very steep hillsides as a result of a loss of soil tension due to the over-saturation of the soil profile from extended or intense storm events, and travel down slope in existing drainages. Mudflows could be possible in the ephemeral drainage that the trail crosses due to intense precipitation of significant duration typical of the Santa Cruz Mountains. While no evidence of previous debris flows were observed at the site, the potential for debris flows to occur is considered low. Debris or mudflows could expose District personnel and the public to a life-threatening event if a flow occurred while people were present. The proposed project will not increase or decrease the hazard level from such an event. However, the low probability of such an event and the limited likelihood of District personnel or the public to be in harm's way during an intense storm necessary to precipitate such an event reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Imeact Incorporation Imeact Imeact IX(a) Physically divide an established community? Li 0 El Z Explanation: (Source: 5).The project is located in unincorporated San Mateo County adjacent to the City of San Carlos and Highway 280. It will not physically divide an established community. 28 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor oration Im act Impact IX(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 0 0 x regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Explanation: (Sources: 5, 8, 33). The project area is located within unincorporated San Mateo County; the land is zoned Residential (RE/5-11) and a designated compatible land use is "outdoor recreation." The outdoor recreation land designation includes recreational uses such as public-owned park and recreation facilities and natural preserves. Therefore, use of the land and trail facilities for outdoor public recreation is consistent with San Mateo County's General Plan and zoning ordinance. The San Mateo County Trails Plan highlights the general project area as a route for the East Ridge Boundary Trail that would provide regional trail connections within the area. Therefore, trail construction for public use is consistent with the policies and goals identified in the San Mateo County Trails Plan. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation IX(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 9- natural community conservation plan? Explanation: Refer to Section IV(f) for an explanation related to habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco oration Im act Im act X(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 11 x resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Explanation for questions a and b: (Sources: 5, 34). The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource since the repair project would not change the current use of the land. The site has not been classified as Mineral Resource Zone, nor is it included in a Resource Sector in the in Update of Mineral Land Classification. XI. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor oration Im act Im act XI(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in x excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Explanation: (Source: 5). According to the San Mateo County General Plan Noise Element, significant noise impacts occur when the noise levels are equal or above 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Exterior noise exposure levels of 70 CNEL or greater are considered significant for residential developments according to the State of California. Within the project area, current ambient noise levels 29 X1. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant nificant with Less Than Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact are under 60 CNEL. The project maintains non-motorized, low-intensity recreational uses to the project area, which would not generate noise in excess of local agency standards. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor oration Impact Impact XI(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 11 0 L1 x groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Explanation: (Source: 1).The project does not involve uses that would generate ground borne noise or vibration. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor oration Im act Impact XI(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels 0 0 L1 x in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Explanation:(Source: 6).As the project involves trail construction for non-motorized low-intensity recreational uses, the project would not generate substantial noise. Moreover District Ordinance 93-1 prohibits after-hours use of the preserve. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporation Im act Impact XI(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient 0 L1 x noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Explanation: (Source: 1). The project will maintain, low-intensity recreational uses in the project area. These uses will not generate substantial or periodic noise. During construction, trail construction machinery may generate temporary increases in noise levels. However, given that the construction work would occur in a remote region of an open space preserve and in an area that would be closed to public use during construction, the temporary increase in noise is not expected to be substantial or of concern. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco oration Impact Im act XI(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, El 11 0 x where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Xl(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Explanation for a and f: (Source: 30). The project is neither located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of an airport, nor within the vicinity of a private airport. i 30 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incoreoration I rn eact Impact XII(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either El 0 0 19 directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? XII(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ Z necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XII(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Explanation for questions a, b and c: (Source: 1). The project neither induces population growth nor displaces housing, nor displaces people. XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imeact Incorporation Imeact Impact XIII(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical El E] 19 11 impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Explanation: (Source: 1). The District's Operations Department already provides ranger patrol in the preserve and maintenance staff to care for trails. The District collaborates with other local agencies in providing public services, including police and fire protection. District Staff is responsible for enforcing District regulations and certain selected sections of California code pertaining to vandalism, bicycle helmets, and parking. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office is involved in enforcement of all other code sections. District staff serves as a possible first responder for fire emergencies, with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection acting as the responsible agency for fire fighting at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. No new or altered governmental facilities will be needed to provide public services to the preserve as a result of the project. XIV.RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imeact Incorgoration I rn pact Imeact XIV(a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 L1 9 1:1 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? XIV(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 1). The project includes construction of new 4 to 5-foot wide trails for low-intensity public recreational uses including hiking and dog walking. Since these permitted uses are low-intensity, and given the size of the preserve (366 acres), construction of the trails will not substantially physically deteriorate the preserve. 31 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the j roect: Significant Mitigation Significant No p Impact Incorporation Im act Impact XV(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 11 El 19 El relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? XV(b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Explanation for a and b: (Source: 1). The project involves construction of new 4 to 5-foot wide trails for low-intensity public recreation. These trails will serve existing preserve users and possibly additional users who desire public recreation. The majority of the preserve users are adjacent residents who either walk or drive a short distance to the preserve from their homes. The anticipated increase in use from the public is expected to be minimal to moderate and will not substantially increase the amount of traffic or cause congestion within the area. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco oration Impact Im act XV(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either 11 0 L1 x an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Explanation:(Source: 1). The project has no effect on air traffic patterns. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Impact Impact XV(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature L1 El 11 x (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e. ., farm equipment)? g Explanation: Sources: 1, 6 . Per District ordinance motorized vehicles are not allowed within the project p ( ) p ) area. Additionally, the trails will not include any hazards such as blind, sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco oration Im act Impact We) Result in inadequate emergency access? L1 0 1E Explanation: (Source: 1). Since the project is located in an open space preserve, emergency access needs are limited to evacuation in the event of injury and fire fighting. The tread width along certain segments within the preserve may already limit access by some firefighting and rescue vehicles. The project involves no changes to allowed uses. After the completion of the project, emergency access will be improved by allowing the passage of all-terrain vehicles and hikers through the currently inaccessible portions of the preserve. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Im act Im act XV(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? L1 L1 X 32 Explanation: (Source: 1). The project involves new trail construction with no changes to currently allowed uses. Although the new trails may draw additional users to the preserve, parking is currently available at the roadside pullout along Edmonds Road and at the preserve entrance adjacent to the Redwood Center. In addition, as a separate project a new parking lot at the preserve will be constructed concurrently to accommodate approximately twenty additional vehicles. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Impact Im act XV(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs El 0 x supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Explanation:(Source: 1). The project involves the new construction of 4 to 5-foot wide trails. However, the project does not involve changes to the allowed trail uses for the preserve and will not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Impact Im act XVI(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the x applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? XVI(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Explanation for a and b: (Source: 1). The project does not expand use of the preserve and therefore does not include new or increased needs for wastewater treatment or wastewater treatment facilities. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation XVI(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water x drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Explanation: (Sources: 1, 25). The project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact incorporation XVI(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the x project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? XVI(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ z provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Explanation for d and e: (Source: 1). The project does not provide water services, would not consume water, and would not generate wastewater. 33 II Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor oration Impact Impact XVI(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity El 0 19 to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? XVI(g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ regulations related to solid waste? I Explanation for questions f and g: (Sources: 1, 6). The amount of solid waste generated by the project would be insignificant. The District does not provide regular trash collection services, and District ordinances require users to dispose of any refuse brought to the preserve, and prohibit public littering or dumping of any material onto the preserve. Illegal trash is removed from the preserve by District maintenance crews and properly disposed. XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor oration Impact Impact XVII(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 x quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Explanation: Due to its small scale and localized nature, the project as mitigated would not degrade the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incor oration Impact Im act XVII(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 0 X limited but cumulatively considerable? ("C umulatively Y considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? Explanation:The primary project purpose is trail construction for low-intensity recreation associated with open space land management. This analysis of cumulative impacts therefore identifies possible future open space management projects that may produce related impacts, and then examines how the proposed project and these possible future open space management actions may combine to act cumulatively. In general, the fundamentally low intensity, dispersed nature of the open space management program minimizes potential for cumulative impacts, since any less than significant impacts would generally be site-specific, localized, and not expected to have potential for considerable combined cumulative impacts throughout the region. The possibility of cumulatively considerable impacts are minimized by the overall lack of disturbance to the watershed as a whole associated with open space use. Most biological and cultural resources impacts are site-specific and are not expected to have appreciable potential for cumulative impacts. Unlike residential and economic development projects, the District only 34 implements minimal improvements (e.g., infrequent parking areas, gravel roads, natural surface trails) within its open space lands. The proposed project, along with similar land management actions by the District or other open space and recreation agencies, would tend to support regional resource protection and have a beneficial combined cumulative impact. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation XVII(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will x cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation: The primary project purpose is trail construction for low-intensity recreation associated with open space land management. Low-intensity recreation in open space lands will not result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. SOURCES REFERENCED 1. MROSD staff professional opinions and conclusions. 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.GIS Viewshed Analysis Map. July 2003. 3. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.GIS Vegetation Map. May 2003. 4. California Department of Transportation.California Scenic Highway Program. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch.February 6, 2002. 5. San Mateo County. General Plan. 1986. 6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Ordinance 93-1,Adopted July 28, 1996.Amended by Ordinance 96-1 adopted February 28, 1996. 7. California Department of Conservation.Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps for San Mateo County. 2000. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp 8. San Mateo County.Zoning Regulations. March 1992. 9. First American Title Company.Former Lands of Benedetti,Policy of Title Insurance.2000. 10. First American Title Company. Former Lands of City and County of San Francisco,Policy of Title Insurance. 1983 11. Bay Area Air Quality Management District.Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment.December 20,2000. 12. Bay Area Air Quality Management District.Particulate Matter Air Pollution(information brochure). http://www.baagmd.gov/pie/pmlObacm.htm.June 11, 1997. 13. Bay Area Air Quality Management District.Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status. http://www.baagmd. o�v/plannin resmod/baas.htm.January 2002. 14. California Air Resources Board.PMIO Air Quality Data Summaries(1988-1997)far San Mateo County. http://www.arb.ca.izov/gqd/pm I 0/a2c4 I.htm 15. Renshaw,Diane L. Vegetation and Wildlife Inventory Proposed Trail Alignments,Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. July 10, 2003. 16. Calflora website.http://www.calflora.org/.March 2003. 17. California Native Plant Society.Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.Special Publications Number 1,Fifth Edition. February 1994. 18. Sander,S.California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/B240.html.November 26,2002. 19. San Mateo County Department of Public Works.Endangered Species and Watershed Protection Program, Volume 1: Maintenance Standards.February 20,2001 20. San Mateo County Ordinance Code.Section 12000:Regulation of Removal of Significant Trees.June 11, 1990. 21. San Mateo County Ordinance Code.Section 11000:Regulation of Removal of Heritage Trees.April 5, 1977. 22. California Department of Fish and Game,Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. http://www.dfz.ca. og vfhcpb/conproi/conproi.shtm].March 2003. 35 i 23. California Department of Fish and Game,Natural Community Conservation Planning Program.http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nccp. March 2003. 24. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Compliance with Historic Preservation Act—Memorandum of Understanding— NPS/L WCF Grant.2001. 25. Best,Tim,CEG.Engineering Geologic Investigation of the Proposed Trails and Staging area,Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, July 2003. 26. California Division of Mines and Geology CD-ROM 2000-004(2000).Official Map ofAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Woodside Quadrangle. 1974. 27. Weaver,William,and Hagans,Danny.Pacific Watershed Associates.Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads.June 1994. 28. Fifield,Jerald S.Field Manual on Sediment and Erosion Control Best Management Practices for Contractors and Inspectors. Forester Press.2002. 29. Association of Bay Area Governments.Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control. May 1995. 30. United States Geological Survey. Woodside 7.5-minute series quadrangle map. 1991. 31. United States Environmental Protection Agency.Regulated Sites Map for 94070. http://134.67.99.77/aspscripts2/mvWindow.asp?xl=-122.319305&vb=37.391434&xr---122.270995&yt--37.427666.December 2002. 32. California Department of Fire and Forestry.Fire Hazard Severity Zones.http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frap_gisdata/select.as June 2003. 33. San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission.MHA Environmental Consulting,Inc.San Mateo County 2001 Trails Plan.2001. 34. California Department of Mines and Geology. Update of Mineral Land Classification:Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. 1996. 36 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM I PULGAS RIDGE TRAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, PULGAS RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE State Clearinghouse Number 2003072051 I San Mateo County, CA July, 2003 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 (650) 691-1200 I EXHIBIT D MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONTENTS This mitigation monitoring program (MMP) includes a brief discussion of the legal basis and purpose of the program, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, discussion and direction regarding noncompliance complaints, and the mitigation monitoring matrix itself. LEGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resources Code (PRC) 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)process. MONITORING MATRIX The following pages provide a series of tables identifying the mitigations incorporated into the Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve (the project). These mitigations are reproduced from the Negative Declaration for the project. The columns within the tables have the following meanings: Number: The number in this column refers to the Initial Study section where the mitigation is discussed. Mitigation: This column lists the specific mitigation identified within the Negative Declaration. Timing: This column identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation will be completed. The mitigations are organized in roughly chronological order relative to the time of implementation. Who will This column references the District department that will ensure implementation of verifyO the mitigation. Agency This column references any public agency or District department with which Department coordination is required to ensure implementation of the mitigation. California Consultation: Department of Fish and Game is listed as CDFG. Verification: This column will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to confirm implementation. NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures associated with the project. The complaint shall be directed to the District's General Manager in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The General Manager shall cause an investigation and determine the validity of the complaint; if noncompliance with a mitigation has occurred, the General Manager shall cause appropriate actions to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue. Verification Number Mitigation Timing Who will Department (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) VERIFY COMPLETION PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION Mitigations Mitigation incorporated into project for special-status bird in section species: IV(a): BIO-1. If trail construction is scheduled for the spring nesting season Within two weeks prior Planning Operations(Resource (February through July), a pre-construction survey of the trail to start of construction, a Mgmt Specialist) alignments will be conducted within two weeks prior to beginning survey along proposed and/or Project Biologist work. If active nests(with eggs or live young)are found, then no trails will be conducted. activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove those active If active nests are found, nests until the young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on no activity that might their own. Empty nests will be removed,but if eggs or young are disturb the nest will be present,nests will be left undisturbed until young birds leave. If permitted until the active nests are found,trail alignments may be modified to avoid the young birds leave the nests. The new alignment will then also be surveyed for nest activity nest and forage on their prior to clearing. Setback buffers to protect nesting birds will vary, own. Trail alignments depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer may be modified to zones would be determined on a case-by-case basis,in consultation avoid active nests,with with a CDFG biologist. setback buffers depending on the species affected and their location. Modified alignments will also be surveyed for nest activity prior to clearing. Mitigation incorporated into project for special-status animal species: San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: BIO-2. For optimum protection, the proposed trail shall be situated so Trail has been aligned to Planning Operations (Resource that the woodrat nests are not readily visible to passing hikers and are follow the mitigation Mgmt Specialist) in a sufficient distance from the trail so that leashed dogs do not dig measures. and/or Project Biologist into lodges,remove sticks from lodges or the nearby area, and are not close enough to mark territory on the lodges or inside the boundaries of the colony. 3 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) The condition of and activity at the new nest built along the revised Prior to trail alignment will be re-evaluated periodically prior to construction. If construction,trail will be the situation changes significantly(the nest is enlarged and finished, surveyed for new and occupied),then a management measure(realignment of the trail, woodrat nests. If visual screening)that is appropriate to the situation and the specific additional nests become location as determined by a qualified biologist will be implemented. evident along the trail If additional woodrat nests become evident at other locations during alignment a screen of clearing and trail construction, a screen of vegetation will be left to vegetation will be left to minimize visibility of the nests from the trail. If existing vegetation minimize visibility of is inadequate to act as an effective screen, it will be supplemented the nests from the trail. with additional plantings,using site-specific native shrubs. If existing vegetation is inadequate to act as an effective screen, it will be supplemented with additional plantings using site-specific native shrubs. If visual screening is not feasible, the trail will be realigned. To ensure that dogs using this part of the trail are kept on leash at all Prior to opening the trail times, signs will be posted in both directions along the trail to hikers signs will be approaching the vicinity of the lodges with language that clearly posted in both directions stresses that a sensitive species is present and that dogs off-leash may along the trail cause damage to these species. Language on the signs will also approaching the vicinity indicate that dog use in the vicinity of the woodrat colony is of the lodges with probationary, and if dog owners fail to comply, the trail would be language that clearly closed to all dog use. Low wire fencing that will not impede the stresses that a sensitive movement of woodrats will also be installed along the bank of the species is present and trail to prevent dogs from impacting the lodges. In addition to these that dogs off-leash may measures, a program to monitor off-leash dog activity will be cause damage to these 4 Verification Mitigation Timing Who will Department (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) developed. Every citation issued following a violation of the on-leash species. Low wire dog regulation will be reported to Planning and maintained in a fencing that will not database. These reports will help in re-evaluating the use of the trail impede the movement of by dogs. woodrats will also be installed along the bank of the trail to prevent dogs from impacting the lodges. Every citation issued following a violation of the on-leash dog regulation will be reported to Planning and maintained in a database. The woodrat nests identified in the vicinity of the trail prior to and Quarterly visits to after trail construction will be monitored to verify that they remain monitor existing active and are not being damaged. A monitoring program will be woodrat nests and developed that includes periodic visits to the nests on a quarterly collect data on their size, basis. Each visit will include a measurement of the woodrat nests and surrounding vegetation, a photograph taken of each nest from a fixed station. A description of and obtain reference the nest and its environment will include information on new material photographs. added or removed from the nest, as well as the surrounding vegetation. Mitigations MitiEation incorporated into protect for sensitive natural in section community: N(b): Purple Needlegrass Grassland: BIO-3. When feasible,the trail routes will be aligned to skirt the edge Prior to start of Planning Operations(Resource of the grassland, avoiding the dense patches of needlegrass. In areas construction, the trail Mgmt Specialist) where the proposed trails will be built through the grassland, the alignment will be fine- alignment will be fine-tuned,prior to construction,to avoid the tuned,to avoid the densest clusters of the native perennial bunchgrasses. densest clusters of the native perennial 5 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing verify? or Agency Consultation (Date& Initials) bunchgrasses. Exotic invasives will be controlled prior to and post construction. Prior to and post Bare soils that may remain after development of the new trail will be construction exotic re-vegetated with native grasses and wildflowers collected from on- invasives will be site sources,or with the same palette of species derived from other controlled. Bare soils local populations. will be re-vegetated with native plants following the trail construction. Mitigation Mitigation incorporated into proiect for cultural resources: in section CULT-]. If archaeological resources are encountered during Verify that Contractor Planning V(b) construction,every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid the and/or Operations staff resources. If artifacts are found, the work shall stop in the area and is monitoring during within 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the construction. significance of the find. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction.This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a) for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Mitigation Mitigation incorporated into proiect for cultural resources: in section CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines Verify that Contractor Planning V(d) under§15064.5(e) into the project construction requirements. and/or Operations staff §15064.5(e)requires the following steps be taken should human is monitoring during remains be encountered: "No further disturbance shall occur until the construction. County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of, 6 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." I 7 Exhibit E CEQA Findings Staff recommends that you make the following findings, based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented: 1. Prior to approving the project that is the subject of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Board has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, along with all comments received during the public review process. 2. The Board determines that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study reflect the District's independent judgment and analysis. 3. The Board determines that the revisions made to the Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project, before the release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for public review, avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point that clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur under CEQA. 4. The Board finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Board that the proposed project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. 5. The Board adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program, which it requires to be , implemented as an element of the Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project. De Minimis Findings State law requires that the California Department of Fish and Game collect filing fees to defray the cost of consulting with other public agencies, reviewing environmental documents, recommending mitigation measures, and carrying out other activities to protect public trust resources under CEQA(Fish and Game Code 711.4). A project is exempt from this fee requirement if the CEQA lead agency finds that the project is de minimis in its effect on fish and wildlife, with no potential for adverse impacts, including adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife resources or wildlife habitat (14 Cal Code Regs §753.5). Since in this case all project impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level, thus avoiding adverse impacts to fish or wildlife, staff recommends that you make the following de minimis findings: The Board of Directors for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented, adopts the following findings of fact: 1. Project Title: Pulgas Ridge Trail Construction Project 2. Location: The project is situated at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, a 366-acre public preserve located in unincorporated San Mateo County, adjacent to the City of San Carlos, just northeast of the intersection of Highway 280 and Edgewood Road. The project area encompasses three 4 to 5-foot wide trail corridors that are approximately 2.4, 0.7, and 0.1 miles in length, respectively. 3. Name and Address Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District of Project 330 Distel Circle Proponent: Los Altos, CA 94022 4. County: San Mateo County S. Project Description: The project includes the construction of three recreational trails for hiking and dog walking at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County. The proposed trails include: (1) A "ridgetop" trail 4 to 5-feet wide and approximately 2.4-miles in length that extends from the northwestern end of the existing Hassler Trail to Polly Geraci Trail at the bottom of Cordilleras Creek. The construction of this trail will also include the installation of four small culverts and three short footbridges that will cross either ephemeral or intermittent streams. The project area is undeveloped and is characterized by natural vegetation. (2) A "south canyon" trail 4 to 5-feet wide and approximately 0.7-miles in length. This proposed trail traverses the south-facing hillside below the existing Hassler Trail, connecting the upper end of Blue Oak Trail to the upper portion of Polly Geraci Trail. The construction of this trail will also include the installation of three small culverts that will cross either ephemeral or intermittent streams. (3) A "connector" trail 4 to 5-feet wide and approximately 0.1-miles in length. This proposed trail follows an existing tractor trail and will connect the parking and staging area on the preserve to the southeastern end of Cordilleras Trail. These trails will constructed using a small bulldozer and mini-excavator; will typically not exceed a 10-percent gradient; and will incorporate best management practices for erosion control. 6. An initial study was conducted to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; 7. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends; 8. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby, on the basis of substantial evidence in the record, rebut the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 Cal Code Regs §753.5(d). Regional Open S. ice J A. ---------- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-03-73 Meeting 03-17 August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation-Monitoring Plan for the Saratoga Summit Trail Construction Project and Final Adoption of an Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for Long Ridge Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMEND17 NS 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt the CEQA Findings and De Minimus Findings as set out in this report. 2. Amend the Use and Management Plan for Long Ridge Open Space Preserve for the construction of the Saratoga Summit Trail, which will be open to hikers and equestrians only. 3. Waive the requirement for a second and final reading of the adoption of the Use and Management Plan amendment because of the necessity to construct and complete this project in order to secure grant funds by the May 2004 deadline. BACKGROUND In 1995, the District acquired the non-contiguous 116-acre Sempervirens Fund property, as an addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (see Report R-95-77). The 157-acre Paul property was purchased and added to Long Ridge in 1997, which bridged the District ownership between the Sempervirens Fund property and the existing Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (see Report R-97-59). These two acquisitions opened up the possibility of connecting the Skyline to the Sea Trail and Castle Rock State Parks trails with the rest of the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve trails. Another driving reason for this trail is that it provides an alternate trail for equestrians and hikers to the Saratoga Gap Trail. The proposed Saratoga Summit trail would provide a connection from Highway 9 to the Hickory Oaks trailhead on Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard). Currently, the only way to make this connection is along the Saratoga Gap Trail, on the eastern side of Skyline Boulevard. The Saratoga Gap Trail is a dedicated section of the Bay Area Ridge Trail and allows use by hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians. The trail is single track on steep slopes and is used very heavily by mountain bikers to connect from the large parking areas at the intersection of Highway 9 and 35, to Stevens Creek County Park, Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, and Long 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 * E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org e Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors: Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton R-03-73 Page 2 Ridge Open Space Preserve, which are all popular mountain biking destinations. Although these are also popular hiking and equestrian destinations, these two user groups have gradually stopped using the Saratoga Gap Trail, due to the difficult conditions created when large numbers of different user groups share the single track Saratoga Gap Trail. As a result, the District has received numerous requests over the years from equestrians and hikers for an alternative to traveling on the Saratoga Gap Trail. The proposed Saratoga Summit Trail would serve as an alternate to the Bay Area Ridge Trail and allow hikers and equestrians to travel separately from mountain bicyclists. In 2000 the District received a matching grant of$30,105 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program to construct the proposed Saratoga Summit Trail (see Report R- 00-78). DISCUSSION The project consists of the development of a 9,210 lineal foot(1.7 miles) trail connection between the Skyline-To-The-Sea Trail and the other trails in Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, located in northern Santa Cruz County. This trail will establish a trail connection between Castle Rock State Park and the extensive trail network on District lands. (See Exhibit A) The trail would be designed to accommodate low-intensity hiking and equestrian use and would be named as an alternate to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Staff proposed the trail name of"Achistaca" after the name of a group of Ohlone Native Americans who once lived in the upper San Lorenzo watershed. From its origin off Highway 9, the first 2,640 feet of the proposed trail connection follows remnants of a timber haul road, which will require only minimal brushing to accommodate public use. The remaining 6,570 feet will require new construction. The trail will be built to a 4- foot width and will generally not exceed 10 percent grade. The trail will incorporate extensive measures to prevent erosion, including outsloping to ensure positive surface drainage, waterbars, rolling dips, and minor retaining wails. A thirty-foot section of trail will require a 4 foot rock buttress to minimize small scale sloughing and reduce maintenance needs. The project also includes installation of regulatory and trail directional signage, trailhead signboards and map dispensers, and short sections of split-rail fencing. Castle Rock State Park encompasses an approximately 100-foot section of land on the north side of Highway 9, adjacent to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve and includes the Skyline to the Sea trail. The District is in the process of applying for a permit to begin construction of the trail and install signage in this area of Castle Rock State Park. District staff has met on site with staff from Castle Rock State Park, and received verbal permission to pursue this project, as well as confirmation that they can improve their trail connection on the other side of Highway 9 to accommodate equestrians. Staff also brou ght up the issue of providing sufficient'ent parking for equestrians. The pullout at the r r 'e proposed t ailhead is art of Castle Rock P w'State arks with a berm q p p p P , alongthe edge of the pullout. State Parks staff felt that the pullout is large enough to g p P g g accommodate at least three equestrians at one time, and that the very large pullout just west of the intersection of Highway 9 and 35 on the south side of Highway 9 provides enough equestrian parking to serve the area. They did not think that any modifications were needed to the existing pullout at the project site. State Parks staff expressed their approval of the project and their R-03-73 Page 3 excitement to see this trail built,because it will give equestrians from Castle Rock more options for trail connections, and provide an alternative to the more difficult Saratoga Gap trail. The California Department of Transportation(Caitrans) owns the right-of way over Highway 9 which extends 100 feet from centerline of the Highway, and also includes the area that the District proposes to begin the trail and installsignage. District staff has spoken with the Cal trans p gP t e Ca trans Encroachment Permit Engineer responsible for Highway 9, who requested that the maintenance supervisor in the area review the project site to make sure that the project was compatible with Caitrans' use for the area. Verbal approval of the project has been given from both the maintenance supervisor and the Encroachment Permit Engineer. District staff has begun the formal process of applying for the encroachment permit for the trailhead and signage. The Use and Management Committee held a public meeting at the project site on July 12, 2003. Staff presented the various issues that affect this project. This included showing the location of the proposed trail in relation to regional trail connections, the history of the property acquisition, the desire from members of the public for the trail, the grant application and grant details, fulfilling the goal of separating trail users due to the heavy use of the existing Saratoga Gap Trail, anticipated parking issues, and District work with the consulting geologist, consulting biologist, and the required detail work has gone into choosing the proposed alignment. After the presentation, the Committee invited the public to ask questions and provide comments regarding the proposed project. Six residents of the Skyline area attended the meeting, including one who had been thrown from her horse on the Saratoga Gap Trail. They expressed their enthusiastic support for the trail segment, and encouraged the Committee to approve the project and for staff to complete the construction as soon as possible. After answering questions from the committee and the public, staff provided a tour of the two ends of the trail where the connections would be made to other regional trails. The Use and Management Committee voted unanimously to recommend Board approval of the proposed Use and Management Plan amendments for Long Ridge Open Space Preserve to include the new Saratoga Summit Trail. As mentioned earlier, this grant funded project needs to be completed and all necessary paperwork submitted to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program by the May 2004. This will allow some time for final inspections and submittal reviews before the actual June 30, 2004 grant deadline. The project is expected to take from six to ten weeks of construction time and require scheduling field staff and volunteers with specialized skills to perform the work. To allow some flexibility to this scheduling, staff would like to have the option to begin work as soon as possible this fall, with the ability to delay some work until the spring of next year if necessary. In this way it will be possible to avoid working during the rainy winter months. Therefore, it is the General Manager's recommendation that the Board approve the final adoption at tonight's meeting and waive the requirement of a second reading at the next regular Board meeting. If the Board approves the project this evening, staff expects to complete the construction of the trail and installation of necessary signage by May 2004 in order to meet the grant deadline. FUNDING R-03-73 Page 4 At your March 26 2003 meeting the Board approved the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget (see Report R-03-34), which included $40,430 to complete the construction of the proposed trail and the purchase and installation of all associated signage. In August 2000 the District received a grant in the amount of$30,667 (or 50% of the total project costs,whichever is less, minus federally approved surcharges) through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The District will match the grant funds with in-kind services and up to $9,763 in District funds. This totals a maximum project budget of $61,334. Therefore, staff anticipates that this project will be completed within the current budget, after grant reimbursements. CEQA COMPLIANCE District staff prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Saratoga Summit Trail Construction Project(for CEQA purposes, "the project"), which is provided under a separate cover as Exhibit B. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration found that a number of CEQA impact criteria simply do not apply to the project due to the project site's remote location and the preserve's low-intensity recreational character. The document also found that the project avoids many other impacts or minimizes them to a less- than-significant level because of project specific factors including trail alignment and design, identification and protection or avoidance of sensitive resources in proposed trail corridor, tree protection, and restoration of disturbed areas as necessary. Most notably, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration found that the project would not adversely affect biologic, geologic, or cultural resources because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project has reduced the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Biologic Resources: Consulting biologist, Diane Renshaw, conducted a focused biological survey in June 2003. The purpose of this survey was to identify any special status plants and wildlife within the project area, and to recommend measures to avoid impacts to those resources as necessary. Renshaw determined that there are no special status species within the trail corridor. A single San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest was located down slope and out of view of the trail. This will not be impacted by trail development or trail use. Consultation with other experts and review of the California Natural Diversity Database confirmed that there are no other known special status or sensitive biological resources in the project area. Geologic Resources: Geologic fieldwork and preliminary findings have been prepared by Timothy C Best, Certified Engineering Geologist. Best concluded that on-site geologic conditions are compatible with trail development; that there are no geologic or hydrologic hazards that would compromise the trail prism; and that trail development and low-intensity use of the trail will not cause local erosion problems or result in sedimentation to hydrologic resources. Historic Resources: District staff conducted a review of in-house preserve and docent files and found no records of historical or cultural resources in the project area. District staff contacted the Northwest Information Center(NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information R-03-73 Page 5 System at Sonoma State University, and requested literature review and records search of all documents pertaining to the area of the proposed trail. There are no known historical or archaeological sites in the project area. Although Native Americans inhabited much of the Santa Cruz Mountains, the specific environmental setting of the trail project suggests a low potential for Native American sites. Since trail construction does involve ground disturbance, there is always the possibility of accidentally disturbing unknown archaeological resources. Archeological resources include buried features such as stone or adobe foundation or walls, wooden remains with square nails, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, and heat affected rock. Public/Agency Notification: A notice describing the project, the District's intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and this public meeting was mailed on July 10, 2003 to owners and occupants of property contiguous to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, as well as persons who had previously expressed an interest in the preserve, and interested equestrians. This notice was also posted at the preserve in several locations, on the District website, and submitted to the Clerk of Santa Cruz County to post for 30 days. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available for public review at the District Administrative Office, on the District website, and at the Cities of Los Altos and Boulder Creek Libraries. Therefore, all public notice requirements of CEQA have been met. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were also submitted to Santa Cruz County and the State Clearinghouse of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Comments Received: No comments were received from the public, or from trustees, or responsible agencies. Mitigation Monitoring Program: In accordance with CEQA, the District has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program, which describes the mitigation measures and monitoring process for the project (see Exhibit Q. The Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented. The Board is being asked to approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) and Mitigated Monitoring Program(Exhibit Q, and adopt the CEQA Findings and De Minimus Findings (Exhibit D). Prepared by: Sumudu Welaratna, Planning Technician Contact Person: Same as above Exhibits: A. Project Elements Map B. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (under separate cover) C. Mitigation Monitoring Program D. CEQA and De Minimus Findings Attachment A - Project Elements Map p Saratoga Summit Trail Development Project Proposed Yukis Trail Alignment 0.3 0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Miles `® 0.2 0.1 o' UPP� 1 (1-1401) U� Stevens Creek County Park Santa Clara County) a area 2000 y SARATOGA,GAP LONG RIDGE A 2200 OPEN SPACE OPEN-SPACE 1.7 �'% PRESERVE PRESERVE` 2400 OD~at 0 Saratoga Sum . 9 r'Fire Station A .\ j• Saratoga Gap 35 r8�1 Vista Point Proposed Saratoga-Summit �• Trail Alignment 2000 g Q' ----- +� Sk line-to-the-SeaTrail , ........................� • o•• Proposed Trailhead ' Originating at R `'•. 0.5 Caltrans Pullout le��'•' _� Stag Park0. r o '•.• .......o• c I ', s ATTACHMENT B MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Saratoga Summit Trail Construction Project Long Ridge Open Space Preserve Santa Cruz County, CA July 11, 2003 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 650-691-1200 I Table of Contents NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT 2 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION 3 INITIAL STUDY 3 REVIEW PERIOD 3 CONTACT PERSON 3 INITIAL STUDY 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 4 SURROUNDING LAND USES: 6 EXISTING SETTING: 6 FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 7 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 8 DETERMINATION: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) 8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11 I. AESTHETICS 11 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 11 III. AIR QUALITY 12 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 14 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 18 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 20 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 22 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 24 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING 25 X. MINERAL RESOURCES 26 XI. NOISE 26 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 27 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 28 XIV. RECREATION 28 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 29 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 30 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 31 SOURCES REFERENCED 32 i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District NEGATIVE DECLARATION A notice,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as amended(Public Resources Code 21,000, et seq.)that the following project: Saratoga Summit Trail Repair Project, when implemented,will not have a significant impact on the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the development of a 9210 lineal foot(1.7 mile) trail connection between the Skyline-To- The-Sea Trail and the other trails in Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, located in northern Santa Cruz County. The project is funded by a grant from the California Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, and is intended to establish a trail connection between Castle Rock State Park and the extensive trail network on the lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The trail would be designed to accommodate low-intensity hiking and equestrian use and would be dedicated as an alternate to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. From its origin off Highway 9, the first 2640 feet of the proposed trail connection follows remnants of an overgrown timber haul road, which will require only minimal brushing to accommodate public use. The remaining 6570 feet will require new construction. The trail will be built to a 4 foot width and will generally not exceed 10 percent grade. The trail will incorporate extensive measures to prevent erosion,including outsloping to ensure positive surface drainage, waterbars,rolling dips,and minor retaining walls. A thirty foot section of trail will require a 4' rock buttress to minimize small scale sloughing and reduce maintenance needs. The project also includes installation of regulatory and directional signage and short sections of split-rail fencing. Project also includes removal of an abandoned vehicle and associated debris. Project construction will occur over a six-to- eight week period during dry conditions. FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Planning Department of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that: 1. The mitigation measures, as listed below and incorporated into the project, are adequate to mitigate the environmental effects to a less than significant level. 2. The project will not adversely affect agricultural resources,mineral resources,population and housing, utilities and service systems,or transportation/traffic in that such impacts simply do not apply to the proposed project,given the minor nature and rural, forested environment of the project and the low-intensity recreational uses that are associated with the project. 3. The project will not adversely affect land use or public services,based on project-specific factors that allow the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. 4. The project will not adversely affect aesthetics,air quality, geology&soils,hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,noise, or recreation,based on project-specific factors that reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 5. The project will not adversely affect biological resources or cultural resources,because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project has reduced the impacts to a less than significant level. 6. In addition,the project will not: • Create impacts that degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or p �' q tY wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory,due to the project's fundamentally small scale, localized nature. • Create impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable,based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. • Create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly,based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore,the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has determined that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES incorporated into the project Mitigation BIO-1. If feasible, schedule noise-generating construction activities between August 1 and in Section February 1, outside the breeding season of raptors. If construction occurs during raptor breeding IV(a): season(February through July),pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the project area.The biologist shall determine a suitable no disturbance buffer zone around the identified nesting tree and construction within the buffer zone shall be postponed until all young are fledged. BIO-2. Should potentially suitable nesting trees need to be removed, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the project area. If raptor nests are present,the trail will be realigned to avoid removal of the tree. BIO-3. Should new woodrat nests be identified prior to trail construction, avoid disturbing woodrat nests by routing the trail and by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from the nest sites. If avoidance of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests is not feasible, consult with CDFG regarding the possibility of relocating the nests outside of the work area. Mitigation CULT-L If archaeological resources are encountered during construction,every reasonable effort in Section shall be made to avoid the resources. If artifacts are found,the work shall stop in the area and V(b): within 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. A reasonable effort will be made by the District and archaeologist to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect finds include fencing, covering remains with protective material and culturally sterile soil or plywood. If vandalism is a threat, 24-hour security shall be provided. During this evaluation period,construction operations outside of the find location can continue preferable with an archaeologist monitoring any subsurface excavations. If the resource cannot be avoided,the archaeologist will develop an appropriate Action Plan for treatment within 48 hours to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. The District will not 2 proceed with construction activities that could affect the discovery until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved. The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable archaeological field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current archaeological standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction.This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a) for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Mitigation CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines under §15064.5(e) into the in Section project construction requirements. §15064.5(e)requires the following steps be taken should V(d): human remains be encountered: "No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition,pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.The County Coroner must be notified of the j find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD).The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommend- ation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION California State Historic Preservation Officer INITIAL STUDY A copy of the initial study is attached. REVIEW PERIOD The Review Period is July 14, 2003 through August 12, 2003. If you have any comments about the Negative Declaration or Initial Study,have information that should be included,and/or disagree with the findings of our study as set forth in the proposed Negative Declaration,please submit your comments in writing no later than 5 p.m. on August 12, 2003 to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,CA 94022. CONTACT PERSON Sumudu Welaratna,Planning Technician 650-691-1200 CathyWoodb Planning Manager � g g Idpeninsula thf Open Space District 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT INITIAL STUDY Project title: Saratoga Summit Trail Development Lead agency name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Contact person and phone number: Sumudu Welaratna (650) 691-1200 Project location: Project is situated in the southern portion of Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, a 1,580 acre public preserve located in unincorporated Santa Cruz County. Project consists of a 4 foot wide trail that originates on Highway 9 and extends approximately 1.7 miles to trails that intersect Highway 35. Project APN: 088-22-104, 088-05-132, 088-02-107 Project sponsor's name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 General plan designation: Parks, Recreation and Zoning: Parks, Recreation and Open Space (O-R); Open Space (PR); Mountain Residential (R- Timber Production M) (TP) Project Description: The project consists of the development of a 9210 lineal foot (1.7 mile) trail connection between the Skyline-To-The-Sea Trail and the other trails in Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, located in northern Santa Cruz County. The project is funded by a grant from the California Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, and is intended to establish a trail connection between Castle Rock State Park and the extensive trail network on the lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The trail would be designed to accommodate low-intensity hiking and equestrian use and would be dedicated as an alternate to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. From its origin off Highway 9, the first 2640 feet of the proposed trail connection follows remnants of an overgrown timber haul road, which will require only minimal brushing to accommodate public use. The remaining 6570 feet will require new construction. The trail will be built to a 4 foot width and will generally not exceed 10 percent grade. The trail will incorporate extensive measures to prevent erosion, including outsloping to ensure positive surface drainage, waterbars, rolling dips, and minor retaining walls. A thirty foot section of trail will require a 4' rock buttress to minimize small scale sloughing and reduce maintenance needs. The project also includes installation of regulatory and directional signage and short sections of split-rail fencing. Project also includes removal of an abandoned vehicle and associated debris. Project construction will occur over a six-to-eight week period during dry conditions. 4 The project also incorporates the following guidelines: • Since trail construction will require the use of mechanized equipment, the project area will be closed to all public use for public safety during construction activities. Project construction will occur over a six to eight-week period. • Schedule project to occur during the daylight hours of the dry season (June 1-October 15) to avoid erosion due to surface runoff during the construction phase. Should work be required outside of this period, winter rules will be in effect prior to June 1 and following October 15. During this period, heavy equipment can be used until 4" of cumulative rainfall is recorded at Skylonda (beginning October 15). Operations in this time period shall not begin until at least 24 hours have elapsed with no measurable precipitation since the most recent 1" or greater precipitation event. No heavy equipment will be used from November 15 to April 15. • Minimize removal of woody vegetation and preserve existing vegetation outside of the trail corridor and construction disturbance zone to act as a filter for runoff. Minimize the disturbed area by clearly designating vegetated areas to be protected; install flagging and/or protective fencing around trees prior to initiating construction activities. • Properly compact all fill slopes, as specified by the project engineering geologist. • Generally maintain trail grades 10% or less along any portion to be constructed. Outslope the trail tread at 3% to divert surface water from trails, where feasible without the removal of large trees. • Minimize fugitive dust where necessary during grading activities by watering down the disturbed soils or by applying an appropriate dust suppressant. • Secure or remove all trash at the end of each working day to maintain a clean worksite. • Appropriately maintain all construction equipment throughout the project: fueling, cleaning or equipment maintenance shall be prohibited except in designated areas. Maintain adequate containment and cleanup materials onsite in the event of spills. • Store, cover, and contain all construction materials and fill using a tarp or erosion control blanket and silt fences in a designated area that is located away from stream channel areas to prevent the inadvertent transport of materials into stream channels. • Use temporary barrier measures such as silt fences or straw rolls to contain sediment originating from graded areas due to spillage or the occurrence of small rainstorm events prior to site restoration. These temporary measures should typically be placed at the toe of cut and fill slopes to slow sheet flows, and be removed after the completion of construction if not biodegradable. • Install temporary stormwater management measures before the start of construction and maintain them throughout the duration of construction activities. • Cover, restore, and stabilize disturbed soil areas as soon as practical after construction, but prior to October 15, including seeding of graded areas using locally native seed, and placing mulch and erosion control reinforcement matting on slopes over 30% and in flow channels. Re-seeding and/or planting should be implemented during the early fall to ensure successful growth. • As the project location falls within the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SODS) zone of infestation, no limbs or branches that are pruned in conjunction with trail construction will be removed from the site. Trail construction crews will be required to clean tools and equipment to prevent spread of SODS into new areas. 5 Surrounding Land Uses: The project area is located entirely within Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, an 1,813 acre public preserve managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for resource and recreation values. The preserve is located in unincorporated Santa Cruz County, bounded by Highway 9 to the south and Highway 35 to the east. Adjacent to the preserve in the south is Castle Rock State Park, a public park managed for resource and recreation values; to the west is the 440-acre Camp Chesebrough, managed for use as a Boy Scout camp; to the east is Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve, a public preserve managed for resource and recreation values; and to the north is Upper Stevens Creek County Park, also managed for resource and recreation values. Existing Setting: Long Ridge Open Space Preserve is located in the upper headwaters of the Oil Creek watershed, tributary to Pescadero Creek. Preserve elevation ranges from 2670 feet at Saratoga Gap to 1520 feet. The terrain is characterized by steep, headwall slopes that descend from the central ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains into the Oil Creek canyon. The vegetation is comprised of mature mixed evergreen forest, with lesser components of coast live oak woodland, manzanita-dominated chaparral, and annual grassland. The preserve has an 11 mile network of trails that provide access for hiking, equestrian use, and bicycling. The proposed 1.7 mile long trail corridor originates from Highway 9 at an elevation of 2560 feet and generally follows a grade of 10 percent. The trail corridor is aligned entirely through the uppermost reaches of the preserve and does not cross Class I or 11 streams or wetland features. The trail terminates at an intersection with existing trails in the central portion of the preserve at an elevation of 2560 feet. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit Document availability: All documents referenced in the Initial Study are available for review from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District office at the address listed above. 6 Proposed Saratoga Summit Trail Alignment 0.3 0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Miles 0.2 (1R01) �� Stevens treek f ^� 1 County Park ✓1 %s�na Clan , \ Oilqr 2000 1 � � SARATOGA\GAP \—L-ONG RIDGE -� 2200 OPEN SPACE OPENrSPACE 1.7 �% PRESERVE �PR~ESERVE i 2400 + ODs � i dr f df06 Saratoga Summit d � Fire Station dp T Saratoga Gap t� r8�1 Vista Point 35 Proposed Saratoga-Summit Trail Alignment 9 � \ 2000 Sk line-to-the-SeaTrail •� / Proposed Trailhead � �••• Originating at R •.•, 0.5 .F — o Caltrans Pullout ea � tle/ock �� ...... r:--•� :• State Park Figure 1. Project Location Map, Santa Cruz County, California 7 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. • Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality • Biological Resources 11 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils • Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning Materials • Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing • Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Cathy Woodbury, Planning Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Printed Name For 8 INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 9 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9 The explanation of each issue should identif y: fy: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS For Sources, refer to page 32. Issues: Less Than I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the project: I(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation: (Source: 1) The proposed trail will not be visible from scenic vistas located along Highway 9 or Highway 35. There are no existing trails in the area, so the new trail will only add to scenic areas that the public may access,without impacting any existing vistas. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 1(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Explanation: (Sources: 1, 15)The proposed trail generally parallels State scenic Highway 35. However, the Highway is on a ridge where the sides drop off steeply, and the proposed trail will be down slope from the highway. The steep topography and heavy vegetation cover conceal the project area from both Highway 35 and Highway 9. The proposed trail will also pass close to the existing CDF Fire Station on Highway 35,but due to the steep terrain, it will be far below the viewshed from the station. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 1(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? Explanation: (Sources: 1)The proposed project consists of a four-foot wide unpaved trail for hiking and equestrian use,which will follow natural contours of the land. Trail signs will be the only evident man-made structures that will be added due to this project and will only occur at the two ends of the trail. As a result,the project would have a less than significant effect on visual quality or character of the site. Less Than Potentially Significant with less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 1(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which ❑ ❑ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Explanation: (Sources: 1, 16).The proposed project will not include new buildings or lighting facilities. District Ordinance 93-1, Section 805.2 prohibits use of the preserve by the public during the nighttime. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 11 less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact II(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ❑ ❑ of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? II(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ El 0 Williamson Act contract? H(c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, ❑ El El 9 due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Explanations for a,b,and c: (Sources: 2, 19)The project area is located on property dedicated and managed for use as public open space by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The property was not under a Williamson Act contract when the District acquired it. No change in land use is proposed as part of this project. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring maps for the project vicinity indicate that no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide importance would be disturbed by the project. III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation III(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ air quality plan? Explanation: (Sources: 3,4, 16)The project involves an expansion of the preserve's non-motorized recreational trail uses,which themselves do not generate odors,dust, or other air pollutant emissions that conflict with the applicable air quality plan.Under District Ordinance 96-1, operation of motor vehicles by the public within the preserve is prohibited. The trail is not wide enough to support ranger patrol vehicles.The project area will require future operation of motorized equipment by trail maintenance crews, for brushing the trail and any other minor trail repairs, and will not result in a significant increase in air pollutants Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Incorporation n Im pact Impact ac t Ela ❑ III(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Explanation: (sources: 3,4)The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board(ARB)have each developed ozone and respiratory particulate matter(PM10) standards to identify acceptable levels of short-term and long-term air pollution.The project does not involve an increase in motor vehicle operation,often a significant contributor to ozone pollution level violations. The project would therefore not contribute substantially to projected ozone violations due to vehicle emissions. 12 _ I The Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)has further noted that the highest PM10 concentrations in the Bay Area are generally recorded in the winter,especially during the evening and night hours due to high use levels of wood burning stoves and fireplaces.The timing of the proposed project would avoid these periods of high PM10 emissions, since the construction-related earthmoving activities would occur during the daylight hours of summer and fall. However,other major sources for PM10 pollution include dust from construction. Since the project is small- scale in nature, any potential dust emissions resulting from the project would be localized and limited to the short-term construction period. Trail construction will be taking place under heavy canopy and there is a high level of soil moisture year round. This will naturally limit dust production. Other incidental dust will be suppressed by watering down and revegetating exposed areas,resulting in only a temporary and negligible increase in local PM10 concentrations. Therefore,the project would not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation in the Bay Area Than Potentially Less Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation III(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Explanation: (Sources: 3,4). As discussed in III(b),the small-scale nature of the project may generate short- term, localized dust emissions.These emissions may result in only a temporary and negligible increase in local PM10 concentrations during the construction period and are not expected to create a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM 10 pollution as regulated under federal or state ambient air quality standards. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact III(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ concentrations? Explanation: (Sources: 3,4)According to the BAAQMD, "sensitive receptors„include children,the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from asthma or bronchitis. The project area is located within an open space reserve with no other existing trails in th p p g e vicinity of the project area. The project area would be closed to all public use during construction activities and therefore,no persons who are"sensitive receptors"would be exposed to any potentially localized elevations of PM10 levels Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact III(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ❑ of people? Explanation: (Source: 1). Given that the intent of the project is to build a low-intensity,non-motorized recreational use unpaved trail which does not emit objectionable p � on ble odors, the project would not create any offensive or objectionable odors. The temporary construction activities are also not expected to create any objectionable odors. I 13 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IV(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ Z ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? Explanation: (Sources: 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,24,25).A focused botanical and wildlife survey was conducted by Diane Renshaw,consulting ecologist. The purpose of the survey was to identify any special status or locally rare species and to identify mitigation measures to avoid potential impacts, if warranted. The Saratoga Summit Trail corridor is located primarily in mature mixed evergreen forest interspersed with occasional coast live oak and Douglas fir trees. Short sections of the proposed trail cross through patches of manzanita-dominated chaparral and annual grassland. The trail does not traverse riparian or wetland communities of any kind. The trail does not cross any Class I or II streams or other watercourses. The project would not have a significant impact on special status species in terms of significant habitat removal, landscape alteration, or food chain modification upon which they depend. Potential adverse impacts to sensitive species would be generally limited to temporary construction impacts. All potential adverse impacts can either be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures listed in this section. Special Status Plant Species Special status plant species potentially present in the project area include Lady's slipper(Cyrpridium sp.), California bottle-brush grass(Elymus californicus), Santa Clara Red Ribbons(Clarkia concinna sp automixa), and King's Mountain Manzanita(Arctostaphylos regisimontana). In June 2003, a focused biological survey was conducted to identify the presence of these listed species or other locally rare species within the project area. The listed species were in their blooming season during the survey, ideal for plant p g g y, p identification. The project biologist determined that there were no listed or otherwise sensitive plant species present in the study area; consequently q y there e e will be no impact to these resources. The California Natural Diversity Database indicates that Ben Lomond Buckwheat(Eriogonum nudum) potentially occurs within a one-mile radius of the project area. Environmental documentation associated with a 2002 Timber Harvest Plan for the adjacent Boy Scout Memorial Foundation property concludes that this report is likely in error as Eriogonum nudum is limited to sandhills habitat found further south in the San Lorenzo Valley. Regardless,the project biologist determined that it is not present in the project area. Special Status Animal Species Special status animals potentially present in the project area include California red-legged frog, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. The California Central Coast Steelhead trout is a special status species not present in the project area that could be potentially indirectly impacted by the project. California red-legged frog(CRLF) The California red-legged frog(CRLF)is a federally listed threatened species and California species of special concern that is known to occur in northern Santa Cruz County. CRLFs are generally found along marshes, streams,ponds,and other permanent sources of water where dense scrubby vegetation such as willows,cattails, and bulrushes dominate,and where water quality is good. Breeding sites occur along watercourses with pools that remain long enough for breeding(usually between late November and April depending on winter rains)and the development of larvae.Appropriate refugia for red-legged frogs include small mammal burrows, downed I 14 logs or vegetation, or dense forest litter. The project biologist evaluated habitat conditions for CRLF within the project area in June 2003. Based on the distance to streams and other permanent water sources and the lack of suitable riparian vegetation, she concluded that the project area does not provide adequate habitat for the species. CRLF surveys conducted in Long Ridge Open Space Preserve in 1999-2000 determined that the closest suitable habitat for the CRLF is located approximately two miles north of the project area, within the Peters Creek watershed, where a small pond adjacent to the preserve provides breeding habitat. Based on the distance from this pond,the steep intervening topography, and the lack of suitable habitat in the project area, it is unlikely that CRLFs would be present in the project area. The project therefore is not expected to result in any direct impacts to CRLF. Potential indirect impacts to CRLF could include temporary increase in turbidity and downstream sedimentation during construction activities; however,the project includes water quality protection measures that fully reduce the potential for such impacts to a less than significant level. (Erosion control and water quality considerations are discussed further in Sections VIII(a),(c), and(f)). Therefore,the project would avoid direct and indirect impacts to California red-legged frogs. Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks The Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk are both State species of special concern that are considered rare breeders in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Cooper's hawks prefer forested habitats in mountainous regions,but also use lowland riparian woodlands and forage in both dense cover and open habitats; in California, nests are usually constructed in oak trees.The local breeding season spans from March through July. Sharp-shinned hawks prey mostly on small songbirds and breed from April through July. Potentially suitable breeding habitat for sharp- shinned hawks occurs over much of the forested mountainous terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains.Nesting sharp-shinned hawks typically inhabit dense coniferous forests adjacent to foraging habit; densely foliaged conifers that are surrounded by dense canopy cover are considered prime nesting trees. The species is considered uncommon in the project area from September to early May. Hawk surveys were not performed,however even if they had been, they would need to be repeated immediately prior to construction to ensure validity after the passage of time. Impacts to Cooper's and sharp-shined hawks The project area may offer potential nesting and migrating habitat for Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks. Temporary construction noise may create a disturbance to nesting hawks and potentially result in nest abandon- ment and mortality of young. The project avoids tree removal to the extent practicable by winding the proposed trail around trees where possible. Brush, occasional saplings, and downed trees may need to be cleared. Removal of trees containing hawk nests may potentially result in the loss of an active nest and mortality of young. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to Cooper's and sharp-shined hawks: BIO-1. If feasible, schedule noise-generating construction activities between August I and February 1, outside the breeding season of raptors. If construction occurs during raptor breeding season(February through July),pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the project area. The biologist shall determine a suitable no disturbance buffer zone around the identified nesting tree and construction within the buffer zone shall be postponed until all young are fledged. BIO-2.. Should potentially suitable nesting trees need to be removed, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the project area. If raptor nests are present, the trail will be realigned to avoid removal of the tree. 15 San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a State species of concern. Woodrats are small mammals that build nests made of sticks typically at the base of trees and shrubs.The species prefers forested habitat with a moderate canopy and brushy understory,particularly on the upper banks of riparian forests. Poison oak is the preferred understory vegetation for nest construction. The dusky-footed woodrat is known to feed on a variety of woody plants, fungi, flowers and seeds. Woodrat nest surveys were performed by the project biologist in June, 2003. One nest was located in the vicinity of the proposed trail,well down slope and out of view of the trail corridor. The project biologist determined that trail construction activities and trail use will not impact this nest site. Impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: Should new woodrat nests be constructed closer to the trail alignment, ground disturbance and temporary equipment and material staging could potentially disturb the woodrats or use of their nests. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: BIO-3. Should new woodrat nests be identified prior to trail construction, avoid disturbing woodrat nests by routing the trail and by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from the nest sites. If avoidance of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests is not feasible,consult with CDFG regarding the possibility of relocating the nests outside of the work area. Steelhead trout California Central Coast steelhead trout,a federally listed threatened species, are known to occur in Oil Creek up to four miles above its confluence with Pescadero Creek. Optimal steelhead spawning and rearing habitat consists of clear,cold, well-oxygenated fresh water with a silt-free gravel substrate. Desirable spawning streams typically offer ample cover in the form of substrate,woody debris,overhanging vegetation and/or overhanging banks. The project area is located along the uppermost slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains, well above Oil Creek and its tributaries. There are no perennial or intermittent streams in the project area capable of supporting steelhead. Consequently,the project would not directly effect steelhead. During very severe storm events,however,there are minor swales or topographic de project a hic depressions in the ro'ect area that could be cap g sediment into P able of delivering the headwaters of steelhead-bearing streams. Project erosion control and water quality considerations are discussed extensive) in Sections VIII a c and J q tY Y O, O, (f). Because the project avoids and minimizes the potential for water quality degradation,it is not expected to result in any indirect adverse impacts to downstream steelhead. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IV(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Explanation: (Source: 6, 7, 18, 20, 21,26).The project area is not located within US Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat, and there are no communities present that are deemed as rare by the California Department of Fish and Game. The trail does not cross any watercourses or stream channels where riparian vegetation is present. 16 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IWO Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Explanation: (Sources: 6, 14, 18).There are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act present in the project area. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact impact IV(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Explanation: (Sources: 6, 7, 12).The project would not interfere with wildlife movement corridors or impede wildlife movement or wildlife nursery sites including movements of any fish.The low-intensity recreational trail will not be fenced and does not act as a barrier to wildlife movement.The trail tread is composed of native soil and is not paved. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significa Significant w ith Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact t Incorporation IV(e) Conflict with an local policies or ordinances protecting x Y p P g � � ❑ ❑ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Explanation: (Source: 6, 19, 20, 21)The project is located within a densely forested setting in unincorporated Santa Cruz County. The project avoids tree removal to the extent practicable by winding the proposed trail around trees. Brush, occasional saplings, and downed trees may need to be cleared. These activities are exempt from State and local permitting requirements. The project includes tree protection and revegetation of disturbed areas, consistent with ordinances protecting other biological resources. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation IV(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Explanation:(Source: 26).No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan is known to apply to the area. 17 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant nificant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact V(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ 0 historical resource as defined in§15064.5? Explanation: (Source: 8). The Northwest Information Center(KWIC)of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University performed a literature review and records search of all documents pertaining to the area of the proposed trail.The records and archive search indicated that the project area contained no recorded Native American or historic cultural resources within the project area and its one- quarter mile search radius. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has their Saratoga Summit Fire Station located along Highway 35. The proposed trail alignment passes close to the station. Due to the steep topography in the area,the trail would be far below the viewshed of the station, and will not affect the operations, or aesthetics of the fire station. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact V(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Explanation: (Source: 8)No archaeological resources have been identified in the project area.Although Native Americans inhabited much of the Santa Cruz Mountains,the specific environmental setting of the proposed trail alignment(steep slopes,narrow mid-slope terraces,narrow swales)suggests a low potential for Native American sites. Native American sites in this portion of Santa Cruz County tend to be situated in broader creek drainages or on mid-slope terraces. Impacts Since the construction of the project involves ground disturbance in an area with a possibility of cultural resources,the project may accidentally disturb unknown archaeological resources. Archeological resources include buried features such as stone or adobe foundations or walls,wooden remains with square nails,chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points,mortars and pestles,dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, and heat-affected rock. Mitigation incorporated into project: CULT4. If archaeological resources are encountered during construction,every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid the resources. If artifacts are found,the work shall stop in the area and within 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. A reasonable effort will be made by the District and archaeologist to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect finds include fencing, covering remains with protective material and culturally sterile soil or plywood. If vandalism is a threat, 24-hour security shall be provided. During this evaluation period, construction operations outside of the find location can continue preferable with an archaeologist monitoring any subsurface excavations. If the resource cannot be avoided,the archaeologist will develop an appropriate Action Plan for treatment within 48 hours to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. The District will not proceed with construction activities that could affect the discovery until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved. The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable archaeological field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current 18 archaeological standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction.This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a) for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation V(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? Explanation: (Sources: 8).No unique paleontological resources are known to exist within the project area. The mitigation under section V(b)calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, i g Pp g g which will also reduce the potential for destroying previously unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level. The proposed project will not substantially change the overall landform and therefore the uniqueness of any geologic feature will not be significantly impacted by the project. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact V(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? Explanation: (Sources: 8) No human remains are known to exist within the project area. However, given the possibility of prehistoric resources,as discussed under V(b)above,unknown human remains may be present in the project area. Impacts: Since the construction of the project involves ground disturbance in an area with a possibility of archaeological resources,the project may accidentally disturb unknown human remains. Mitigation incorporated into project: The mitigation under section V(b)calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for disturbance to human remains. CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines under§15064.5(e)into the project construction requirements. §15064.5(e)requires the following steps s be taken should human remains be encountered: "No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition,pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." 19 I VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant nificant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VI(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Explanation for a and c: (Sources: 14, 17, 18)An engineering geologic investigation was conducted by Timothy C. Best, Certified Engineering Geologist. The purpose of the investigation was to identify geologic or hydrologic hazards that would constrain trail development; to recommend erosion control measures; and to confirm that the trail alignment would not impact the physical environment. The proposed project is located within a near-wilderness unpopulated setting. No structures for human occupancy are proposed. A geologic evaluation of the proposed trail has been conducted to identify the geologic suitability of the project; to identify any geologic, hydrologic, or soil-related issues related to trail construction; and to identify construction and engineering methods to reduce failure of the trail due to geologic hazards. The project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone. The San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately one mile east of the project area. The San Andreas Fault is capable of generating a Maximum Moment Magnitude 7.1 to 7.9 earthquake with a recurrence interval of 220 years. Peak ground acceleration with a 10%probability of exceedance in 50 years is reported to be about 0.8g. High ground accelerations associated with fault rupture are likely a contributing factor--if not dominant--for movement on many of the deep-seated landslides found in the area.Fault rupture or high ground accelerations associated with earthquakes are not expected to have a significant impact on the trail prism or on the users of the trail. Shallow debris slides debris flows and channel bank failures are relative) common n w', y c o the steep slopes rthm the Santa Cruz Mountains.These rainfall-activated landslides are typically restricted to near surface soils and weathered bedrock. Such slides most commonly occur on steep inner gorge slopes oversteepened by stream bank erosion or in shallow and steep ravines and swales where surface and ground wa ters are concentrated. A few old debris slide scarps are evident on the steeper slopes below the proposed trail alignment,but few recent landslides were observed. Two small shallow landslides were observed along proposed the trail corridor. The low rate of shallow landslidin in the project area i e ea is likely attributed to the competent nature f the underlying g p � y p o e bedrock material and upslope portions of the proposed trail. The proposed trail alignment has been modified to avoid steep slopes to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, the proposed trail will cross slopes greater than 60% for several hundred feet. On these steep slopes there is a potential for small-scale shallow slope failures during adverse climatic or seismic events. Large-scale slope 20 failures are not expected. Future slide movement is unlikely to result in harm to users of the trail nor result in substantial sediment delivery to streams. Several possible deep-seated bedrock landslides underlie portions of the proposed trail alignment.These slides are characterized by a somewhat cohesive slide mass with a relatively deep failure plane compared to the previously discussed shallow debris slides and debris flows. The slides were identified based on broad scarps and subtle mid-slope benches on what is otherwise moderately to steeply sloping terrain.The proposed trail is to be constructed at a relatively narrow(—4-foot)width resulting in small cuts and fills. As a result,the trail should have little impact on these slides since the mass balance and hydrology of the slide will not be substantially altered. Therefore,the increase risk of deep-seated landsliding as a result of the construction of the trail is considered to be low. Given the low intensity recreational nature of the trail,the remote setting,the low potential for landslide movement, and the incorporation of trail alignment modifications by the project engineering geologist,the project is not expected to pose a substantial risk of exposing people or structures to hazards resulting from landslides or increase landslide instabilit y. less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VIM Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation: (Sources: 13, 14, 17, 27) While the project area receives annual precipitation between 45 and 55 inches per year,the underlying soils are deep and well-drained. Trail designwill follow recommendations and P Y Y g p guidelines established by the project engineering geologist for long-term erosion control and trail stability. The trail generally follows 10 percent grade and will be designed to prevent erosion through 3 percent outsloping to ensure positive drainage, use of w aterbars and rolling dips,ro ck buttresses,and regular trail inspections and maintenance. There are no water crossings that could re sult esult in sedimentation to hydrologic resources. The project is scheduled for construction duringthe d season June 1 —October 15 and the site will be full r}' ( ) Y restored prior to the onset of rains to avoid erosion due to surface flows. The project includes a number of erosion control, site restoration,and dust suppression guidelines(see page 5). These measures are sufficient to reduce the potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil to less than significant levels. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation VIA Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ ❑ x p � ❑ ❑ of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Explanation: (Sources: 14,27)Based on site observations,the site soils have low plasticity, and have a low potential for expansion.No signs of highly expansive soils(e.g. shrinkage cracks)were observed. The project does not include construction of structures that could be significantly affected by expansive soils and given the open space setting of the project area and the lack of buildings or other habitable structures,no substantial risk to preserve users or property is expected due to expansive soils. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VI(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Explanation: (Sources: 14, 27) The project area is located in a heavily forested unimproved area,no 21 septic tanks or disposal systems are proposed as part of the project.Moreover,no septic tanks or disposal systems are known to exist in the project area. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VII(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Explanation:(Source: 16)The District does not routinely transport or use hazardous materials in the project area.District Ordinance 93-1, Section 409.2 prohibits persons from possessing or using harmful substances on District lands. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VII(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Explanation: (Source: 16)Under District Ordinance 93-1,operation of unauthorized motor vehicles within the preserve is prohibited,restricting general public use of the preserve to low-intensity,non-motorized,and non- emitting uses including hiking and equestrian use. Incidental motor vehicle oil and gas leaks is very rare and limited to the infrequent use of District ranger and maintenance vehicles and occasional emergency responders such as the California Department of Forestry. The construction phase of the project includes best management practices to ensure that care is taken to avoid spills and properly manage hazardous materials to prevent a release of hazardous materials into the environment.The risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment is therefore considered less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VII(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Explanation:(Source: 1, 22)The project area is not within t/4 mile of an existing or proposed school. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact V11(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Explanation: (Source: 28)The project area is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites. No EPA regulated facilities are found in the project area. 22 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VII(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VII(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or w in project area? Orkin the g p 1 Explanation for a and f: (Source: 22)The project is neither within an airport land use plan, within two miles of an airport,nor within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VII(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ o adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Explanation: (Source: 1)The project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The project proposes to provide hiking and equestrian unpaved trail that will not interfere with an existing P p J p p P g q P Y g roadways or trails. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No i Mitt Impact P�ion Impact Impact P incorporation P p x VII h Expose people or structures to a significant risk o loss O P P P , .f injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Explanation: Sources: 16 23 The project is in the n'p ( ) p J e minimally developed western portion of Santa Cruz County in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection(CDF)designates the project areas as lying within a zone of moderate fire hazard severity,based on local vegetation type(fuel loading), slope and weather. This designation notwithstanding,the project would not change the degree of exposure to wildfires,as it involves only the construction of an unpaved trail.The project is within an existing preserve with existing trails open to the public. The level of exposure to wildland fires remains the same with or without the project. In addition,District Ordinance 93-1 Section 404 prohibits fires and smoking on District lands. District Rangers trained in fire-fighting techniques and carrying fire suppression equipment regularly patrol the preserve. District staff generally serves as first responder to fire emergencies, with the primary fire protection falling to the California Department of Forestry, County Fire Departments, and municipal fire protection agencies. A CDF station is located just adjacent to the proposed alignment, so in the event of a wildland fire, the response time would be very fast. 23 V111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact V111(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ 13 9 0 requirements? V111(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ El 9 0 site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? V111(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Explanation: (Source: 14,22, 29)These three checklist items are interrelated, and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. The project involves construction restoration of 2640 lineal feet of existing trail and new construction of 5985 lineal feet of new trail.No effluent waste would be discharged. The project includes a number of trail drainage improvements and erosion prevention guidelines as outlined in the project description (see page 1). There are no watercourse crossings along the proposed trail alignment. The project area is characterized by upland headwall swales, located well above segments of Oil Creek that are capable of sustaining intermittent or perennial water flows. Consequently, the project will not directly degrade water quality. The best management construction practices described in the project description will insure that incidental erosion will not impair nearby water resources. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation Vill(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [3 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Explanation:(Source: 1, 16) Water is not provided on District trails. The project will not pump groundwater and does not interfere with groundwater recharge. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact V111(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? V111(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed E] 13 19 11 the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? V111(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 24 V111(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Explanation: (Source: 14, 17,22).These four checklist items are interrelated and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. As discussed under VIII(c) above, annual rainfall can approach 55 inches in the project area. A notable climactic feature of the Santa Cruz Mountains is the occurrence of storms of extreme intensity and duration that can be responsible for periodic flooding in the area. The extensive open space lands surrounding the project provide a vegetated buffer for the project and allow rain to percolate into the ground rather than running off rapidly. The project adds no additional impervious surfaces and would not substantially alter the site drainage patterns or increase the amount of runoff.No polluted runoff sources will be introduced by the project. The proposed project does not cross streams or other watercourses and would not place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that might impede flood flows. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VIII(g) Place housing within a I00-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Explanation: (Source: 1). The project does not involve housing. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VI11(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ Explanation: (Source: 14).The project is situated at an elevation of 2560 feet above mean sea level. Seiche or tsunamis would have no impact on the site. Mudflows are a form of landsliding known as debris flows.These instabilities generally form in thick surficial deposits on steep to very steep hillsides as a result of a loss of soil tension due to the over-saturation of the soil profile from extended or intense storm events, and travel down slope in existing drainages.Mudflows could be possible in the ephemeral drainage that the trail crosses due to intense precipitation of significant duration typical of the Santa Cruz Mountains.While no evidence of previous debris flows were observed at the site, the potential for debris flows to occur is considered low to moderate. Debris or mudflows could expose District personnel and the public to a life-threatening event if a flow occurred while people were present.The proposed repair alternatives will not increase or decrease the hazard level from such an event. However,the low probability of such an event and the limited likelihood of District personnel or the public to be in harm's way during an intense storm necessary to precipitate such an event reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact . IX(a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation: (Source: 1,22).The project is located in a remote section of unincorporated Santa Cruz County surrounded entirely by undeveloped open space lands. 25 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IX(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Explanation: (Sources: 19, 21).The project is located in unincorporated Santa Cruz County in an area zoned for Parks,Recreation,and Open Space; and Timber Production. Both zoning categories allow for outdoor recreation facilities, including hiking and equestrian trails, signage,and associated parking facilities. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation IX(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ natural community conservation plan? Explanation: Refer to Section IV(f)for an explanation related to habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact X(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 19, 21).The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource since the project would not change the current use of the land. The project area is not located within a County-designated Mineral Resource Zone. XI. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant with less Than Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XI(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Explanation: (Source: 1,21). The project conforms to the Santa Cruz County General Plan Noise Element in that construction would occur during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in a location removed from any residences. Moreover, limited use of trail machinery will not cause any significant noise impacts in the project's remote location. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XI(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 26 XI. NOISE Less Than Potentially significant with Less Than Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Explanation: (Source: 1). The project does not involve uses that would generate groundborne noise or vibration. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XI(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Explanation: (Sources: 1, 16). The project involves short-term construction of a trail for non-motorized low- intensity recreational uses. Noise associated with construction will be short-term.Moreover,District Ordinance 93-1 prohibits after-hours use of the preserve. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XI(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Explanation: (Source: 1).The project will result in non-motorized, low-intensity recreational uses to the project area.These uses will not generate substantial or periodic noise. During construction,trail-repair machinery may generate temporary increases in noise levels.However, given that construction work would occur in a remote region of an open space preserve and in an area that would be closed to public use during construction,the temporary increase in noise is not expected to be substantial or of concern. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XI(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Explanation for question a and f: (Source: 22).The project is neither located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of an airport,nor within the vicinity of a private airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XII(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 27 X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact X11(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X11(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Explanation for questions a, b and c: (Source: 1). The project neither induces population growth nor displaces housing or people. X111. PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact X111(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Explanation: (Source: 1, 16).The District's Operations Department already provides ranger patrol in the preserve and maintenance staff to care for trails.The District collaborates with other local agencies in providing public services, including police and fire protection. District Staff is responsible for enforcing District regulations and certain selected sections of California code pertaining to vandalism,bicycle helmets,and. parking. The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office is involved in enforcement of all other code sections.District staff serves as a possible first responder for fire emergencies,with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection acting as the responsible agency for fire suppression in the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. No new or altered governmental facilities will be needed to provide public services to the preserve as a result of the project. XIV. RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XlV(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? XIV(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation for questions a and b: (Source:1). The project involves building 1.7 miles of unpaved trail for hiking and equestrian use. This trail will provide new opportunities for existing trail users,but is not anticipated to attract significant numbers of new trail users to the area. 28 n XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? XV b Exceed either individual) or cumulative) a level of x Y Y, h service standard established b t e count congestion Y Y g management agency for designated nated roads or highways? Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 1)The project involves building 1.7 miles of unpaved trail for hiking and equestrian use.This trail will provide new opportunities for existing trail users,but is not anticipated to attract significant numbers of new trail users to the area. No substantial increases in traffic volumes are expected. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Explanation:(Source: 1)The project has no effect on air traffic patterns. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? Explanation: (Source: 16). Per District ordinance, motorized vehicles are not allowed within the project area, with the exception of infrequent District maintenance vehicles,which are designed for off-road driving. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV(e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Explanation:(Source: 1). Since the project is located in an open space preserve, emergency access needs are limited to evacuation in the event of injury and fire fighting.The tread width limits access by some firefighting and rescue vehicles. The project involves terrain and uses that exist in many open space preserves, and rangers and maintenance staff will provide patrol and presence in the area. There is excellent access to the project area from each end of the trail from Highways 9 and 35 along this 1.7 mile trail,and the CDF station is easily accessible from the trail as well. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation:(Source: 1). Ample parking is available in this area with direct trail connections to the project area 29 at an existing Caltrans vista parking lot,Caltrans pullouts along Highway 35 and Highway 9, and a District parking lot at the adjacent Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Explanation: (Source: 1)The project will cause no changes to the existing uses of roads and parking areas in the vicinity. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XVI(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? XVI(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 1).Trail construction, future trail maintenance, and trail use will not require new or increased needs for wastewater treatment or wastewater treatment facilities. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation XVI(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Explanation: (Source: 1, 14).The project incorporates extensive erosion control measures including outsloping, rolling dips, and ditch relief culverts. The project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation XVI(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? XVI(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Explanation for questions d and e: (Source: 1)The project does not provide water services, would not consume water, and would not generate wastewater. 30 I Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XVI(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to accommodate the disposal needs?j roect's solid waste dis p p XVI(g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Explanation for questions f and g: (Sources: 1, 16). The amount of solid waste generated by the project would be insignificant.The District does not provide regular trash collection services,and District ordinances prohibit public littering or dumping of any material onto the preserve.District signage directs visitors to pack out trash. Illegal trash is removed from the preserve by District maintenance crews and properly disposed. Since no increase in visitation is anticipated as a result of project implementation,no increase in solid waste disposed is expected. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XVII(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Explanation: Due to its fundamentally small scale and localized nature,the project as mitigated would not degrade the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XVII(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ limited but cumulative) considerable? ("Cumulatively y ( y considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? Explanation:The primary project purpose is construction of 1.7 miles of recreation trail within an open space preserve in a rural setting in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This analysis of cumulative impacts therefore identifies possible future open space management projects that may produce related impacts, and then examines how the proposed project and these possible future open space management actions may combine to act cumulatively. In general,the fundamentally low intensity,dispersed nature of the open space management program minimizes potential for cumulative impacts, since any less than significant impacts would generally be site-specific, localized, and not expected to have potential for considerable combined cumulative impacts throughout the 31 region. i fcumulatively egio he poss possibility o considerable impacts are minimized by the overall lack of disturbance to the watershed as a whole associated with open space use. Other than the development of this trail,there are a number of potential minor road repair and restoration projects to reduce erosion and restore the natural condition of the environment within Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. As the goal of these projects is to restore the environment, taken together they will not result in a cumulative impact to the environment. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact act Impact Incorporation XVII(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation: The trail construction project will minimize direct and indirect substantial adverse impacts to human beings. Sources Referenced 1. Field observations, opinions, and professional conclusions of MROSD staff 2. California Department of Conservation. 2000. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Important Farmland Mapping GIS Database. 3. California Air Resources Board. 2003. State Area Pollutant Designation Program and Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm 4. California Air Resources Board. PM 10 Air Quality Data Summary (1988-1997) for Santa Cruz County. htt ://www.arb.ca. ov/a d/old m10/A2C44.htm Y p g q p 5. Kan T Midpeninsula , m r 2 1.a a a. 00 Regional Open Space District Rare Plant Inventory. Report submitted to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. p g p 6. Renshaw, Diane. 2003. Biological Resource Assessment of the Proposed Saratoga Summit Trail j Project. Report submitted to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 7. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California Natural Diversity Database. 8. Findings from Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, September 1999 9. .Se more, Rich and Westphal, Mike. 2000. MROSD Amp Y p Amphibian Survey. Report submitted to the Y p Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 10. California Department of Forestry. 2002. Boy Scout Memorial Foundation Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan. 11. Korbholz, Bill and Smith, Dennis. 2003. Natural Resources Database. www.nrdb.org 12. California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Oil Creek Stream Survey. 13. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 2002. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of Central Coast Region. CD-ROM 2000-004. 14. Best, Timothy C. 2003. Engineering Geologic Review of the Proposed Saratoga Summit Trail. Report submitted to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 15. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Program. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch.July 8, 2002. 16. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Ordinance 93-1, Adopted July 28, 1996. Amended by Ordinance 96-1 adopted February 28, 1996. 32 I 17. California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California Precipitation GIS Data. Distributed via the California Spatial Information Library, http://gis.ca.gov/BrowseCatalog.epl 18. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. National Wetlands Inventory. Distributed via the California Spatial Information Library, http://gis.ca.gov/BrowseCatalog.epl 19. Santa Cruz County. 1994. General Plan. 20. Santa Cruz County. 2003. Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Protection Ordinances, Chapter 16.30.10, available at http://ordlink.com/codes/santacruzco/index.htm 21. Santa Cruz County. 2003. Santa Cruz County Zoning Regulations, Chapter 13.10, available at http://ordlink.com/codes/santacruzco/index.htm 22. USGS Minclego Hill, Castle Rock Ridge , and Big Basin 7.5" Topographic Quadrangles 23. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 1998. Fire Severity Hazard Maps. http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data.htmi 24. Kan, Tamara. 2003. Personal communication. 25. Morgan, Randy. 2002. Botanical Field Survey, Camp Chesebrough. Report submitted to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 26. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Status of Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural III Communities Conservation Planning. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nccp/Status.htm 27. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. State Soil Survey Geographic Database. 28. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Regulated Site Mapping Information for 95030 http://www.epa.gov/epahome/�hereyoulive.htm#databases 29. Weaver, William, and Hag ans, Danny. 1994. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads. it 33 ATTACHMENT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SARATOGA SUMMIT TRAIL DEVELOPMENT, LONG RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Santa Cruz County, CA August 8, 2003 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 (650) 691-1200 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONTENTS This mitigation monitoring program (MMP) includes a brief discussion of the legal basis and purpose of the program, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, discussion and direction regarding noncompliance complaints, and the mitigation monitoring matrix itself LEGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resources Code (PRC) 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)process. MONITORING MATRIX The following pages provide a series of tables identifying the mitigations incorporated into the Saratoga Summit Trail Development Project at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (the project). These mitigations are reproduced from the Negative Declaration for the project. The columns within the tables have the following meanings: Number: The number in this column refers to the Initial Study section where the mitigation is discussed. Mitigation: This column lists the specific mitigation identified within the Negative Declaration. Timing: This column identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation will be completed. The mitigations are organized in roughly chronological order relative to the time of implementation. Who will This column references the District department that will ensure implementation of verify? the mitigation. Agency This column references any public agency or District department with which Department coordination is required to ensure implementation of the mitigation. California Consultation: Department of Fish and Game is listed as CDFG. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is listed as USFWS. Verification: This column will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to confirm implementation. NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures associated with the project. The complaint shall be directed to the District's General Manager in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The General Manager shall cause an investigation and determine the validity of the complaint; if noncompliance with a mitigation has occurred, the General Manager shall cause appropriate actions to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue. Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) REQUIRE IN CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS,VERIFY COMPLETION PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION Mitigations Mitigation incorporated into project for special-status animal Verify project schedule Planning Operations(Resource in section species: to determine need for Mgmt Specialist) IV(b): Cooper's and sharp-shined hawks: onsite surveys and and/or Project Biologist BIO-1. If feasible, schedule noise-generating construction activities buffer zones prior to between August I and February 1, outside the breeding season of start of construction. raptors. If construction occurs during raptor breeding season During construction, (February through July),pre-construction surveys shall be conducted verify on-site staff are by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction to adhering to any determine if raptors are nesting in the project area. The biologist shall identified buffer zones. determine a suitable no disturbance buffer zone around the identified If potentially suitable nesting tree and construction within the buffer zone shall be nesting trees are to be postponed until all young are fledged. removed, verify that all requirements are BIO-2. Should potentially suitable nesting trees need to be removed, followed. pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the project area. If raptor nests are present,the trail will be 01 realigned to avoid removal of the tree San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: Conduct woodrat nest Planning Operations(Resource BIO-3. Should new woodrat nests be identified prior to trail surveys prior to start of Mgmt Specialist) construction, avoid disturbing woodrat nests by routing the trail and construction. If nests are and/or Project Biologist by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from present and cannot be the nest sites. If avoidance of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat avoided, consult with Consult with CDFG if nests is not feasible, consult with CDFG regarding the possibility of CDFG regarding nests are present and relocating the nests outside of the work area relocation of nests and cannot be avoided, implement prior to regarding relocation of construction. nests. Mitigation Mitigation incorporated into project for cultural resources: in section CUL T-1. If archaeological resources are encountered during To be required by Planning V(b) construction, every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid the Construction Does. resources. If artifacts are found, the work shall stop in the area and Verify that on-site staff 3 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) within 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the are monitoring during significance of the find. construction. A reasonable effort will be made by the District and archaeologist to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect finds include fencing, covering remains with protective material and culturally sterile soil or plywood. If vandalism is a threat,24-hour security shall be provided. During this evaluation period, construction operations outside of the find location can continue preferable with an archaeologist monitoring any subsurface excavations. If the resource cannot be avoided, the archaeologist will develop an appropriate Action Plan for treatment within 48 hours to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. The District will not proceed with construction activities that could affect the discovery until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved. The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable archaeological field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current archaeological standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction. This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a)for invoking unanticipated discoveries CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines under §15064.5(e)into the project construction requirements. §15064.5(e)requires the following steps be taken should human remains be encountered: "No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, 4 V i Who will Department Verification ]Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation initials) pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." Mitigation Mitigation incorporated into project for cultural resources: in section CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines To be required by Planning V(d) under§15064.5(e)into the project construction requirements. Construction Does. §15064.5(e)requires the following steps be taken should human Verify that On-Site Staff remains be encountered: "No further disturbance shall occur until the are monitoring during County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, construction. pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." 5 Attachment D CEQA and De Minimus Findings CEQA FINDINGS Based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented: I. Prior to approving the project that is the subject of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Board has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, along with all comments received during the public review process. 2. The Board determines that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study reflect the District's independent judgment and analysis. 3. The Board determines that the mitigations incorporated into the Saratoga Summit Trail Construction Project, avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point that clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur under CEQA. 4. The Board finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Board that the proposed project, may have a significant effect on the environment. 5. The Board adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program, which it requires to be implemented as an element of the Saratoga Summit Trail Construction Project. DE MINIMUS FINDINGS State law requires that the California Department of Fish and Game collect filing fees to defray the cost of consulting with other public agencies, reviewing environmental documents, recommending mitigation measures, and carrying out other activities to protect public trust resources under CEQA(Fish and Game Code 711.4). A project is exempt from this fee requirement if the CEQA lead agency finds that the project is de minimis in its effect on fish and wildlife,with no potential for adverse impacts, including adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife resources or wildlife habitat (14 Cal Code Regs §753.5). Since in this case all project impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level, thus avoiding adverse impacts to fish or wildlife, staff recommends that you make the following de minimis findings: The Board of Directors for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented, adopts the following findings of fact: 1. Project Title: Saratoga Summit Trail Construction Project 2. Location: The project is situated at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, a 1,580 acre public preserve located in unincorporated Santa Cruz County. Project consists of a 4 foot wide trail that originates on Y Highway 9 and extends approximately 1.7 miles to trails that intersect Highway 35. 3. Name and Address Midpeninsula Regional. Open Space District of Project 330 Distel Circle Proponent: Los Altos, CA 94022 4. County: Santa Cruz County 5. Project The project consists of the development of a 9210 lineal foot (1.7 Description: mile) trail connection between the Skyline-To-The-Sea Trail and the other trails in Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, located in northern Santa Cruz County. The project is funded by a grant from the California Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, and is intended to establish a trail connection between Castle Rock State Park and the extensive trail network on the lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The trail would be designed to accommodate low-intensity hiking and equestrian use and would be dedicated as an alternate to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. From its origin off Highway 9, the first 2640 feet of the proposed trail connection follows remnants of an overgrown timber haul road, which will require only minimal brushing to accommodate public use. The remaining 6570 feet will require new construction. The trail will be built to a 4 foot width and will generally not exceed 10 percent grade. The trail will incorporate extensive measures to prevent erosion, including outsioping to ensure positive surface drainage,waterbars, rolling dips, and minor retaining walls. A thirty foot section of trail will require a 4' rock buttress to minimize small scale sloughing and reduce maintenance needs. The project also includes installation of regulatory and directional signage and short sections of split-rail fencing. Project also includes removal of an abandoned vehicle and associated debris. Project construction will occur over a six-to-ten week period during dry conditions. 6. An initial study was conducted to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; 7. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends; 8. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby, on the basis of substantial evidence in the record, rebut the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 Cal Code Regs §753.5(d). Regional Open a ice Meeting 03-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Reject All Bids Received July 29, 2003,and Solicit New Bids for Construction of the Foothills Field Office Maintenance Shop Building Replaceme t at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMEND7�TI0 1. Reject all bids received for construction of the Maintenan or Building for a Foothills Field Office at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. 2. Authorize staff to solicit new bids. BACKGROUND The existing Foothills shop building is a 2,500 square-foot, steel frame and corrugated metal structure attached to the Foothills Field Office at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. It is believed to have been constructed in the 1950s and was used for many years as a maintenance facility for a construction company. Since the District acquired the preserve in 1975, it has served as a shop building for the District's Foothills field operations. In conjunction with plans to expand the Foothills field office building in 1991, District staff conducted structural assessments of the shop building and discovered that both the structure's diaphragm integrity and the connections between the framing and roofing materials are substandard under current building codes. One assessment also indicated that the building could suffer major damage in an earthquake or windstorm. After the new field office was completed in 1995, Boley Consulting Engineers prepared preliminary plans for reinforcing the shop building. Based on this initial engineering effort,planning and field staff began looking at possible architectural changes that would integrate the shop with the field office building, provide additional workspace, and create a more functional and visually unobtrusive shop building. After much consideration, staff finally determined that the only viable solution was to replace the shop building. In addition to the above considerations, staff has also identified the following factors in arriving at the decision to replace the existing building: • There is not enough room in the existing 2,500 square-foot building to accommodate the equipment and number of staff persons in the Foothills field office—the needs have simply outgrown the space in the existing building • There is no separate welding room that separates welding from other activities in the shop • There are only two truck bays in the building, which is not enough for the maintenance and repair schedules of vehicles and equipment; as a result considerable staff time is spent unloading and reloading tools on vehicles that can't be locked inside the building • There is no heat in the building, making it very difficult to work in the shop during the winter months • There is no separate room for working on equipment while other activity is going on in the shop • There is no public restroom for occasional visitors at the Foothills field office • There is a shortage of men's lockers—a new building will provide space for additional unisex lockers separate from the bathroom areas The Planning Department's work program for fiscal year 2001-2002 included funds for evaluating the overall operational needs for replacing the shop building, and for beginning the actual work of replacing the shop building with a prefabricated facility. The department's work program for fiscal years 2002-2003 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org :«i OF&EEC. Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager: L.Craig Britton R-03-75 Page 2 i and 2003-2004 included soliciting bids for construction and complete the construction of the building and associated items. DISCUSSION At the October 23, 2002 meeting,the Board authorized staff to solicit a second round of bids for construction of the replacement shop building at the Foothills field office(report#R-02-106),after the first round produced bids substantially higher than the project budget. The project includes demolition of the existing shop building,construction of a new steel building, and associated site work. Staff worked with the architect to adjust the budget and modify the design to address this budget gap.Unfortunately, new bids for the revised design have come in significantly higher than the revised budget. A Notice to Bidders was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News on July 8, 2003. Copies of the plans and specifications were sent to two area Builders Exchange offices.Twelve potentially interested contractors received a complete bid package. A mandatory pre-bid meeting was held at the project site on July 15,2003 that was attended by eight contractors. Sealed bids were due on July 29, 2003 and three bids were received, summarized below. For the purpose of this summary, the Base Bid is defined as the Total Bid minus the two Deduct Alternate items (5 &6) listed on the bid proposal form. The apparent low bid, from Tinney Construction Company, also contains significant irregularities in the item costs and overall completeness that make it unlikely to be acceptable as a responsive bid. Bidder Location Base Bid 1. Tinney Construction Company Redwood City, CA $ 674,389 2. CSB Construction Company Walnut Creek, CA $ 756,465 3. Chegwin Construction Company San Jose, CA $ 1,018,000 All of the bids received were considerably higher than the budgeted construction cost estimate of $552,000(the low bid from the September 2002 bids),therefore staff is recommending that all bids be rejected and a new set of bids be solicited. The Santa Clara County planning office has issued an Architectural and Site Approval Permit for the project, and a building permit is expected to be issued in coordination with the award of contract for construction. There are several reasons for the difference between the District's cost estimate and the bids. Several changes have occurred since the last bidding that account for more than the difference between the low bid from last September's bidding and this time. The most significant ones are: Underground utilities not included in the September 2002 bid because work was planned to be performed by $41,000 district staff Fire sprinkler system,required for the new building by the fire marshal in July 2003 $18,000 general conditions,and fees $17,000 Concrete aprons were an alternate item in September 2002,but a part of the base bid in July 2003 $16,000 20%increase in worker's compensation insurance since last year $13,000 Removal of existing apron was not included in the September 2002 bidding $4,500 Liability insurance increased from 0.7%to 1.0% $3,000 Escalation(2%of bid) $13,000 Total Additional Costs $125,000 I I R-03-75 Page 3 BUDGET At the March 26, 2003 meeting, the Board adopted the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget that included $575,000 for the Foothills shop building replacement(see Report R-03-34). District staff members, working with consultant Hitech Construction Management, have revised the budget to $817,000, including the changes listed above. Adopted Budget, FY 2003-2004 Revised Budget Construction: $552,000 Construction: 700,000 Associated Costs: $ 23,000 Associated Costs: 117,000 Total: $575,000 Total: $817,000 Associated costs include:building permits&fees,seismic trenching,construction management,relocation expenses,structural inspection,etc. BUDGET GUIDELINES The guideline for improvements to staff facilities is$150,000 per year averaged over a five-year period. The 2003-2004 Staff Facilities Program budget brought the adopted five-year average to $271,228, which exceeds the guideline(see Report R-03-33). This is due to three necessary staff facility improvements including construction of the shop building at the Foothills Field Office,repairs and lead-based paint abatement at the Skyline Field Office, and rehabilitation of the La Honda Creek ranch house. Given the revised cost estimate for the shop building project of$817,000,the five-year average would increase to $319,713. In general, staff facility improvement costs have remained below the cap.The high peaks in the annual expenditures represent construction of a new facility, such as the Skyline office building in 1997, or major improvements to structures.Therefore, it is anticipated that under expenditures in future years could bring this guideline into compliance. At the time the Board approved the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget, the Administration and Budget Committee was charged with reviewing the Staff Facilities Program guideline during the next budget cycle. Staff recommends that the guideline be reviewed in conjunction with the 5- Year Capital Improvement Program this fall to ensure a more comprehensive approach to staff facilities improvements. RECOMMENDATION The bids received are legally valid for a period of sixty(60)days.Due to the need to solicit additional competitive bids, staff recommends that the Board reject all bids that were submitted on July 29,2003 and authorize solicitation of new bids for construction of the maintenance shop building for the Foothills Field Office. It is anticipated that bids will be close to the amount of$700,000, as discussed in this report. Amendment of the budget is not requested at this time, as this will be a consideration for the Board at the time of bid approval. Prepared by: Steven Schur,ASLA/APA, Open. Space Planner II i Contact Person: Cathy.Woodbury,ASLA/AICP,Planning Manager Regional Open S, :re 1 R-03-78 Meeting 03-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Approve the Reorganization of the Acquisition Department; Amend the Position Classification Plan, Eliminating the Real Property Representative Position and Approve the Filling of the Vacant Land Acquisition Manager Position and Corresponding Bud arY Inc se GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve Reorganization of the Real Property Department as set out in this report. 2. Amend the Position Classification Plan, eliminating the Real Property Representative position and approve the filling of the vacant Real Property Manager(formerlly called the Land Acquisition Manager) position and approve a corresponding budgetary increase. DISCUSSION The position of Land Acquisition Manager has been part of the District's Classification Plan for a number of years, but has not been budgeted or filled. Instead, the General Manager has served as the Land Acquisition Manager while providing more development opportunities and experience for the Real Property Representative. Over the last year, with the Coastal Annexation Project, labor negotiations, state budget concerns, preparation for refinancing of some of the District's debt, and other District priorities, the General Manager has given higher level responsibility to the Real Property Representative. In fact, in January of this year, both the Real Property Representative and the Senior Acquisition Planner were given the out-of-class assignment of Acting Land Acquisition Manager (on a shared basis) to properly compensate them for their responsibilities in assisting with the management of the Department. These responsibilities include departmental budget preparation and oversight, attendance at Management Team meetings, and administration of most aspects of the Acquisition Department. With the vacancy of the Assistant General Manager position, and increased District project workload, such as the ones mentioned above, a reorganization is sorely needed as it is no longer possible for the General Manager to function as the Land Acquisition Manager. The proposed reorganization of the Acquisition Department includes filling the Land Acquisition Manager position, and eliminating the Real Property Representative position from the Classification Plan. It is normally the intent and practice of the District to run full, competitive recruitments for any new vacancies. However, reorganizations are often formulated around existing staff to capitalize upon existing individual strengths, expertise, and experience in developing and assigning job duties. In this reorganization, the General Manager has determined that this would include the promotion of Mike Williams, Real Property Representative, to Land 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org - Web site: www.openspace.org AmE RMEEE Board of Directors: Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz - Genera!Manager:L.Craig Britton R-03-78 Page 2 appointment is supported by Management Team, as well as members of the Land Acquisition Department. This issue of competitive recruitments was a component of the Workplace Enhancement Plan. In the General Manager's written response(August 2001)to the employees' questions, it was reiterated that full, open and competitive recruitments would be conducted as a standard practice, but that in the case of a reorganization, the District would assess the reorganization options and may structure a reorganization around existing staff. I have notified all employees of this planned reorganization at staff meetings and via written memos, and I have also responded to staff suggestions/in this regard. The budget impact of this recommended change is approximately$4,600 for the first year. At the mid-year Budget review, staff will evaluate the salary and benefit categories for possible adjustment. Prepared by: Sally Thielfoldt, Administration and Human Resources Manager Contact person: L. Craig Britton, General Manager Regional Open ice s R-03-82 Meeting 03-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Approve a Five Point Salary Increase to the Assistant General Manager Position and Amend the Position Classification and Compensation Plan to Reflect the New alary Range GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMEND Approve a salary increase of Five Points to the Assistant General Manager Position and amend the Position Classification and Compensation Plan to reflect the new salary range. DISCUSSION Staff has used the current vacancy in the Assistant General Manager position to re-evaluate the job responsibilities of the position. After re-evaluation, the Class Specification has been revised to reflect a broader scope of responsibilities of the position, thereby giving the General Manager more flexibility in assignments to the Assistant General Manager. After revision of the Class Specification, and prior to recruitment efforts, staff also conducted a salary survey for Assistant General Manager to assure that the recruitment will draw a sufficient number of highly qualified applicants. The salary survey included four related agencies, East Bay Regional Parks, Santa Clara County Parks and San Mateo County Parks, Santa Clara County Water District, and three smaller, local cities- Saratoga, Los Gatos and Belmont (see attached chart). The survey showed that the average top end of similar positions in these agencies would be approximately $126,957, with the current salary of the District's Assistant General Manager at $114,822 (a 10.5% difference). It is also important, for internal equity, to maintain an appropriate increment between salaries of positions which relate to each other. For example, typically a minimum salary buffer of 15-20% should exist between the General Manager, Assistant General Manager and Department Managers positions. After analyzing these increments, comparing the current Salary Range with similar positions in similar agencies, and reviewing the steps within the District's current pay plan, staff is recommending a five-point increase in the Assistant General Manager position which would bring the top step salary from $114,822 to $120,683 to insure that the District's recruitment for this important position brings in the widest possible field of well qualified candidates. The new Assistant General Manager step range is reflected on the attached Position Classification and Compensation Plan. Prepared by: Sally Thielfoldt, Administration and Human Resources Manager Contact person: L. Craig Britton, General Manager 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org - Web site: www.openspace.org ftg Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton Assistant General Manager Current Comparlale Salarres ®f Aili1003 °�1v1Rt��C)°riot inul�r� irr �r+ ir� e} Agency Position Title Max Santa Clara County Department Chiefs $152,932 Water District EBRPD Assistant General Manager $148,304 City of Belmont Assistant City Manager $140,904 Town of Los Gatos Assistant City Manager $124,306 City of Saratoga Assistant City Manager $1 19,000 MRQSD Assistant Gener 44,a/Manager $1 822. , Santa Clara County Deputy Director -- Operations $1 14,323 Parks San Mateo County Parks Park Superintendent $88,932 AVERAGE MAXIMUM SALARY $126,957 I Assistant General Manager Current:Cam arable alarres`as 08r 6f: �a {with 5 pvin�increase� Agency gPosition Title Max r Cou nty naClaaC Sa t y f $152,932 Department Chiefs Water District EBRPD Assistant General Manager $148,304 City of Belmont Assistant City Manager $140,904 Town of Los Gatos Assistant City Manager $124,306 MROSt? �4ssistanl*r; neraf,Manager '' $12U,b84 City of Saratoga Assistant City Manager $119,000 Santa Clara County Deputy Director -- Operations $1 14,323 Parks San Mateo County Parks Park Superintendent $88,932 i � MidpeOiO8Ul3 Regional Open Space []i8tO(;t Position Classification and Compensation Plan *� � � Ef#ectiveU4X}1/20O3. Amondod08/13/2O03 � Classification Step Range Hourly Range Monthly Range AnnualRange � � Interpretive Aide 234 - I59 $16705 -$214I3 $3,896 ~ $3J13 $34,746 ~ $44,560 � Clerk 234. - 259 $16.705 -$I1.4I3 $2,896 - $3,713 $34,746 ~ $44,560 � Farm Maintenance Worker 248 ' 273. $19.202 -$24.625 $].]28 ~ $4,268 $39,940 - $51,220 Open Space Technician 248 ' 273. $1920I -$I4.625 $3.328 - $4,268 $39,940 ~ $51,220 Administrative Assistant 249. - 174. $19394 -$24.871 $3.362 - $4,311 $+0339 - $51.732 ' | Accounting Clerk 257. ' 282. $21.001 -$26932 $3.640 ~ $4,668 $43.68I ~ $56,019 Lead Open Space Technician lSO. ' I8]. $21.211 -$27I01 $3'677 - $4^715 $44.118 ~ $56.578 � Planning Technician 259. ' I84. $21.42] -$2747] $3.713 - $4.762 $44.560 ~ $57.144 | Ranger 259 ' 784 $2|*2] -$27�73 $]7|] - $476I �445�O ~ ��7 |��� � � . . . . � Senior Administrative Assistant I69. - 284. $21423 -$27A73 $].71] - $4.762 $44.560 - $67.144 � Network Specialist 262 '2O7. $22.072 -$28306 $3,826 - $4,906 $45,910 ~ $58,876 Docent Programs Cvvrdinmnr 264. - 289. $22.516 -$I8.875 $].90] ~ $5.005 $46,8]] ~ $60.060 � Volunteer Coordinator 264. -I89. $2I.516 -$78.875 $3.903 ~ $5.005 $46.833 ~ $60.060 � Equipment Mechanic Operator 267. - 292. $I3.198 -$29J50 $4.021 - $5.157 $48.252 ~ $61.880 Senior Accounting Specialist 267. ' 292. $23.198 -$29J50 $4.021 - $8.157 $48.252 ~ $61.880 ' Open Space Planner| I69. - 294. $23.664 -$30348 $4.102 ~ $5.260 $49.221 ~ $63.124 Public Affairs Specialist 269. ' 294. $23.664 -$]0]48 $4.10I - $5.268 $49.221 ~ $63.124 Real Property Specialist I6*. ' 294. $2].664 -$30]48 $4.102 ~ $5.260 $49.221 ~ $63.124 Maintenance&Construction Supervisor 274. ' 299. $24.871 -$31.896 $4.311 ~ $5.329 $51.73I - $66.344 Supervising Ranger 274. ' 299. $24.871 -$31.896 $4,311 ~ $5.5I9 $51.732 ~ $66.344 Community Programs Supervisor 284. ' ]O9. $27.473 -$35.I41 $4.762 - $6'108 $57.145 - $73'301 Land Protection Specialist 284. ' ]09. $27.473 -$35.241 $4^76I ~ $6'108 $67.145 ~ $7].]01 Open Space Planner|| 284. - ]O9. $27473 -$36.241 $4.762 - $6.108 $57.145 - $73.301 Resource Management Specialist 284. ' 3O9. $27.473 -$35.241 $4,762 ~ $6.108 $57,145 ~ $73.301 Support Services Supervisor 284. - ]O9. $27473 -$35.241 $4.762 - $6.108 $57.145 ~ $7].]01 Management Analyst 288 - 3|]� $28�5�9 -$36��7� $4.96S ~ $�.]6� ��9.��� ~ $7�`28� � � � Area Superintendent 794. ' ]|Y. $30348 -$38.938 $5.260 - $6.749 $63.1I3 ~ $80991 � � Senior Acquisition Planner 294 - ]|9. $]0.348 -$389]8 $5.260 ~ $6,719 $63.123 ~ $80991 Senior Planner I9*. ' 319. $30.348 -$38938 %5.260 - $6.749 $63.123 ~ $80,991 � Attorney 299. - 3l4. $31.896 -$40929 $5.529 - $7.094 $66.343 - $85.132 � Public Affairs Manage, 304. ' 329. $33.5I6 -$43.022 $5.81 | ~ $7.467 $69.735 ~ $89.406 � Administration/Human Resources Manager 314. ' 339. $37.043 -$47.85 $6.421 ~ $8,239 $77,050 - $98,873 � Operations Manager 314. ' ]]V. $37.843 -$47.535 $6.421 ~ $8.239 $77'050 ~ $98.873 Planning Manager 314. - ]3V. $]7.04] -$47.535 $6.421 - $8.239 $77.050 - $98`873 � Real Property Manager 314. - 339. $]7l4] -$47.535 $6,421 ~ $8.239 $77.050 ~ $98873 Assistant General Manager 334. ' 359. $45I2I -$50.021 $7.838 - $10.057 $94.062 - $120.684 ~^oo,x not include Board appointees: ocnmv/mwnqwr. Legal Counsel,c"xonxe, The salary ra«xo/»,Seasonal Open Space Technicians a$/5.r**$//.3x per hour w/'x actual individual rate,00e determined u/nine vfhire. Range uzo points below mreo4mm Technician range. Salary ranges determined^o4o hour per week basis. Regional Open �, we 1 R-03-83 R-03-83 03-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MeetingAugust 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Authorize Entering into an Agreement with Primary Consulting Services for Needed Staff Recruitments GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIQ Authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Primary Consulting Services for an amount not to exceed $30,000 to conduct five staff recruitments. DISCUSSION The District needs to fill five important positions, as noted below: 1. Asst. General Manager, created with the resignation of incumbant to take a career growth opportunity with another agency. 2. Human Resources Anal, with the recent resignation of incumbant to take a career growth opportunity with another agency. 3. Administrative Assistant- Administration, with the recent resignation of incumbant to take a career growth opportunity with another agency. 4. Administration Analyst- the position budgeted for six months of this fiscal year to do budget analysis, assist with risk management contract administration, 5-year CEP monitoring, general contract administration and Request for Proposal processing 5. Resource Planner IE- the position budgeted for six months of this fiscal year to gather general resource information and oversee development of preserve-wide or area-wide resource management plans. With the loss of the two Administration Department human resources positions, which are responsible for the internal recruitment process, it is virtually impossible to conduct these recruitments internally at this time. Staff, therefore, began a search to outsource the recruitment process. This included a comparison of executive search firms to fill the Assistant General Manager position. It is important to utilize an outside agency for the Assistant General Manager position because it is an executive level position and also in consideration of the possibility of internal candidates. Three public sector executive search firms were contacted regarding the Assistant General Manager recruitment and quoted costs as follows: (i) William Avery and Associates -$14,200, plus expenses of approximately $4,000; (ii) Wilcox Miller- $16,000 plus expenses of approximately $4,000; and (iii) Bob Murray& Associates - $17,500 plus approximately $5,500 to $6,500 in expenses. 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org - web site:www.openspace.org =EE" Board of Directors: Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett,Kenneth C. Nitz - Genera!Manager:L.Craig Britton R-03-83 Page 2 Staff also contacted Office Team, which is a temporary employment agency the District uses successfully for temporary employment needs. Office Team has a"temp to hire" program, which could assist with some, but not all of the recruitment needs. Under the"temp to hire" program, the cost for filling the two human resources positions alone could be as much as $20,000. Primary Consulting Services("Primary") of Los Gatos was also interviewed. Primary is able to conduct full service recruitment processes including advertisement, testing, applicant screening, background checks and interviews for all five positions. District Staff would be involved in the final interview phase. The Recruiter who will be conducting the Assistant General Manager recruitment has 15 years of public sector experience as the Director of Employee Relations for the County of Santa Clara. She also served on the Board(and as Board President) of the National Public Employer's Labor Relations Board. Primary quoted a cost for recruitment of all five positions on an hourly rate estimated to run between $25,000 and $30,000, including expenses. In light of their public sector experience, their ability to conduct the full range of recruitment services, and the reasonableness of the fees(average of$6,000 including the executive search), and their locale, which reduces expenses, staff is recommending Primary Consulting Services to conduct these five recruitments. Thereafter, with Human Resources fully staffed, the District would return to conducting recruitments in-house (with the possible exception of executive positions). The cost of outsourcing these recruitments would be offset by salary savings from vacancies in these positions. A recommendation to increase Contract Services and decrease Salary and Benefits would be made at the mid-year budget review to cover the shift in expenses. Administration will hire only one staff member on a temporary basis while these recruitments are in process. The budget adjustment from Salaries and Benefits to Temporary services will also be recommended at the mid-year review. The temporary staff person will provide both analyst and administrative assistance to the department to cover other ongoing human resources needs. Prepared by: Sally Thielfoldt, Administration and Human Resources Manager Contact person: Same as above Regional Open f ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-03-80 Meeting 03-17 August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Adoption of Ordinance Permitting Scattering of Human and l Cremated Remains (Cremains) on District Lands GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMEND TI 1. Adopt Ordinance No. 03-02 allowing the scattering of legally cremated human and animal remains (cremains) on District property, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7116. 2. Direct staff to develop procedures and guidelines for implementation of a permit system consistent with this Ordinance. DISCUSSION California State law (Health and Safety Code 7116) allows for the scattering of cremated human remains on public and private property, with the permission of the land owner. In response to this, and requests we have received from the public, staff recommends that the attached Ordinance allowing the scattering of cremains (including animal remains), only under the listed conditions, be adopted by the Board, and that staff be directed to develop specific guidelines in conjunction with the permit system. Prepared by: Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst Contact person: Same as above 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org L�r'wzi O'Es, Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton ORDINANCE NO. 03-02 AMENDING ORDINANCE 93-1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PERMITTING THE SCATTERING OF CREMATED HUMAN OR ANIMAL REMAINS ON DISTRICT LANDS ADOPTED AUGUST 27, 2003 Be it ordained by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as follows: SECTION 1 Findings. A. The Board of Directors hereby finds that adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the proper administration, governance, protection and use of District lands, and is both necessary and appropriate for the safe use of District lands by the public. B. The Board of Directors further finds that permitting the scattering of legally cremated human or animal remains (cremains) on District lands is an appropriate use of District lands, within permitted guidelines. C. The Board of Directors finds that allowing this activity can be of significant emotional benefit to survivors of a deceased person or family pet. D. The Board of Directors finds that scattering of cremains is permitted under the authority of the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7116. SECTION 2 Section 807 of Ordinance 93-1 is hereby added as follows: 807 SCATTERING OF CREMATED REMAINS 807.1 Regulations for the Scattering of Cremated Remains No person shall scatter any cremated human or animal remains (cremains) without first having obtained a written permit from the District, and shall abide by the permit conditions which shall include, but not be limited to, the following conditions: Ordinance No. 03-02 A. The scattering of cremains is prohibited: within 1,000 feet of any residence or dwelling, within 500 feet of any creek, stream, or other body of water, or within 50 feet of any road or trail. B. Cremains must be scattered, must not be left in a pile, and must not be readily visible to the public. C. No containers for the cremains, identification tags, vases, flower pots, or other associated non-organic materials, or non-native plants, may be left at the site. D. No memorial, plaque, or other site marker may be left at the site. E. Any person scattering cremains on District land shall possess and present a valid District permit when scattering cremains. SECTION 3 A copy of this Ordinance shall be published at least once within thirty (30) days of adoption in a newspaper of general circulation printed, published and circulated in the District, and shall be effective from and after October 6, 2003. The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District held on the 13" day of August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Nonette Hanko, President, Board of Directors Attest: Attest: District Clerk Kenneth C. Nitz, Secretary Regional Open 5 ice 1 R-03-77 Meeting 03-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 8 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Change District's Designation of Authorized S tones for District General and Payroll Checking Accounts GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDAT 1. Amend by Resolution Section 2.40 of the District's Rules of Procedure adding the Real Property Manager as an approved"Financial Instrument Signatory." 2. Adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Signatories for General Checking Account(Mid-Peninsula Bank). 3. Adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Signatories for Payroll Checking Account(Mid-Peninsula Bank). 4. Adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Financial Instrument Signatories for Santa Clara County Accounts. DISCUSSION Section 2.40, "Financial Instrument Signatories,"of your Rules of Procedure states that, "The authorized signatories ... for payroll or for amounts less than$5,000 shall be any one of the following six employees: (1)the General Manager; (ii)the Assistant General Manager; (iii)the Administration and Human Resources Manager; (iv)the Operations Manager, (v)the Public Affairs Manager, or(vi)the Planning Manager,"and that, "The authorized signatories for ... amounts of$5,000 or greater(excluding payroll) shall be any two of the following employees: (i)the General Manager; (ii)the Assistant General Manager; (iii)the Administration and Human Resources Manager; (iv)the Operations Manager, (v)the Public Affairs Manager,or(vi)the Planning Manager." Staff recommends amending Section 2.40 to include the currently vacant Land Acquisition Manager position,which is expected to be filled upon approval of the Board earlier at tonight's meeting (see Report R-03-78). While the Rules of Procedure are specific regarding positions designated as signatories,the District's bank requires that resolutions be adopted by the Board each time individuals occupying signatory positions change. With the resignation of the Assistant General Manager, and the filling of the vacant Real Property Manager position, identification of new signatories is in order. Because the District draws warrants from the County of Santa Clara, a further resolution is required identifying changes in named signatories when they occur. Prepared by: Lisa Zadek, Assistant District Clerk Contact person: Sally Thielfoldt,Administration and Human Resources Manager 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org - Web site: www.openspace.org [wa OF E'F" Board of Directors: Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton RESOLUTION NO. 03- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING SECTION 2.40 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE Section 2.40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.40 Financial Instrument Signatories (a) The authorized signatories to checks,warrants,Withdrawal applications and the Santa Clara County claim forms of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for payroll or for amounts less than$5,000 shall be any one of the following six-�WM employees: (i) the General Manager, (ii) the Assistant General Manager, (iii) the Administration and Human Resources Manager (iv) the Operations Manager, (v) the Public Affairs Manager, of-(vi) the Planning Manager—or, "y*-jbg=kqrLd-6gqyb MCI (b) The authorized signatories to checks,warrants,withdrawal applications and Santa Clara county claim forms of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in amounts of$5,000 or greater(excluding payroll) shall be two of the following employees:Q the General Manager, (ii) the Assistant General Manager, (iii) the Administration and Human Resources Manager, (iv) the Operations Manager, (v) the Public Affairs A Manager,oit-(vi) the Planning Manage h Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution supersedes Resolution 89-5 1, adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on November 8, 1989 and Resolution 91-28 adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on June 28, 1991. RESOLUTION NO. 03-26 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING SECTION 2.40 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE Section 2.40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.40 Financial Instrument Signatories (a) The authorized signatories to checks,warrants,withdrawal applications and the Santa Clara County claim forms of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for payroll or for amounts less than$5,000 shall be any one of the following seven employees: (i) the General Manager, (ii) the Assistant General Manager, (iii) the Administration and Human Resources Manager, (iv) the Operations Manager, (v) the Public Affairs Manager, (vi) the Planning Manager, or(vii) the Real Property Manager. (b) The authorized signatories to checks,warrants,withdrawal applications and Santa Clara county claim forms of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in amounts of$5,000 or greater(excluding payroll) shall be two of the following employees: (i) the General Manager, (ii) the Assistant General Manager, (iii) the Administration and Human Resources Manager, (iv) the Operations Manager, (v) the Public Affairs Manager, (vi) the Planning Manager, or (vii) the Real Property Manager. Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution supersedes Resolution 89-5 1, adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on November 8, 1989 and Resolution 91-28 adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on June 28, 1991. RESOLUTION NO.03-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ESTABLISHING FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT SIGNATORIES OF THE DISTRICT FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY ACCOUNTS The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: Whereas Section 2.40 of the Rules of Procedure(required by Public Resources Code,Division 5, Chapter 3,Article 3, Section 5536)of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District authorizes signatories to make disbursements on behalf of the District, Now,therefore,the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The signatures of the present holders of said offices are as follows,and the Director of Finance of Santa Clara County is authorized to make disbursements on behalf of the District based on any one signature for amounts under$5,000.00 and any two signatures for amounts of$5,000.00 and over,as set forth below: General Manager Administration and Human Resources Manager L. Craig Britton Sally T'hielfoldt Real Property Manager Operations Manager Michael C.Williams John Maciel Planning Manager Public Affairs Cathy Woodbury Stephanie Jensen Regional Open ice 1 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-03-76 Meeting 03-17 August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 9 AGENDA ITEM Permit to Enter to United States Department of Agriculture(USDA)Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for Soil Sampling in Foothills,Fremont alder, Los Trancos, Monte Bello, Pichetti Ranch, Rancho San Antonio, and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the proposed actions are categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)based on findings contained in this report. 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute the attached Permit to Enter allowing USDA-NRCS access to the various preserves for the purpose of soil samplings to update the Soil Survey of the Santa Clara County Area of the District. DISCUSSION The USDA-NRCS is leading the National Cooperative Soil Survey Program, a partnership of federal land management agencies, state agricultural experiment stations and state and local units of government that provide soil survey information. As part of this program the USDA-NRCS is updating the Soil Survey of the Santa Clara County Area published in 1968 and is interested in surveying District lands located in Santa Clara County. The project is expected to take several years to complete, and will include surveying District lands and other open space lands. The USDA-NRCS has requested formal permission to sample the soil on District lands located in Santa Clara County(see attached letter). During the first year, August 2003 to August 2004, the soil survey is expected to take place in Foothills, Fremont Older, Los Trancos,Monte Bello, Pichetti Ranch, Rancho San Antonio, and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves. The testing would consist of approximately 10 to 12 holes per survey day,with a total of approximately 250 holes per year. Soil samplings will be taken at a maximum depth of five feet with a maximum diameter of 10.25 inches(the diameter of the hole will mostly be of 3.25 inches unless soil is hard and a different hand tool is needed). Soil samplings will be taken at various points off trail. Sampling holes will be immediately backfilled with the excavated soil and then compacted. As some of the preserves to be surveyed have confirmed Sudden Oak Death, procedures for treating affected soils were developed by the USDA-NRCS and will be followed when conducting the soil samplings: 1. Sampling tools will be sprayed with Lysol, 1%bleach solution, or a 70%alcohol solution after digging each hole. 2. Soil samples(100-200 grams)will be placed in ziplock bags and sealed,individual bags sealed in larger secondary ziplock bag. 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org [ OF�'E°T Board of Directors: Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz • Genera!Manager:L.Craig Britton R-03-76 Page 2 3. Samples will be heated to 180 degrees F. for 45 minutes to kill all fungus. Samples will then be re-bagged in new ziplock bags for analysis at lab. 4. Organic layers or duff at the surface will not be sampled. 5. Shoes, gloves, and backpacks will be treated with Lysol, 1%bleach solution, or a 70% alcohol solution regularly. 6. Vehicles, if used,will be washed completely on the surface and underneath immediately after driving on dirt roads. Upon completion of the survey the USDA-NRCS will provide the District with GIS digital copies of the data and a copy of the report. CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of approximately 10 to 12 soil borings per survey day, with a total of approximately 250 per year. Soil samplings will be taken at a maximum depth of five feet with a maximum diameter of 10.25 inches (the diameter of the hole will mostly be of 3.25 inches unless soil is hard and a different hand tool is needed). Soil samplings will be taken at various points off trail on bare soil and no vegetation will be removed. Sampling holes will be immediately backftlled with the excavated soil and then compacted. Field soil survey work will be done manually and consists of digging a small hole down to the bedrock with a sharp spade. CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is categorically exempt from CEQA(California Environmental Quality Act)under Sections 15304 and 15306 of the CEQA guidelines. Section 15304 exempts minor alterations to land, including minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. Section 15306 exempts basic data collection and resource evaluation which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. Prepared by: Ruthie Harari-Kremer,Planning Technician Contact person: Same as above A ' 8Al1 JOA{°IW JW I l (�A Natural SOL �JSDA Resources ' 0 67MM NRCS Conservation _ Service CENTENNIAL SANTA CLARA SOIL SURVEY USDA-NRCS Concord Service Center 5552 Clayton Road Phone:530-792-5642 Concord CA 94521 Fax: 530-792-5794 Email will iam.reed n ca.usda.gov Cell: 831-594-1547 Tuesday,July 22,2003 To: Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District The Natural Resources Conservation Service is updating the Soil Survey of the Santa Clara Area published in 1968. The soil survey work was actually completed in 1942. Soil mapping from this period is rather sketchy in uplands, their focus was to map farmland. The new updated survey will have information on soil characteristics and properties plus interpretative information on a variety of land uses. We have many soil interpretations for recreation such as camp grounds, and paths and trails. I would like to request access to enter the Monte Bello area near Page Mill Road first to evaluate the existing soil mapping further and eventually all the land managed by the District during the course of the soil survey which will take several years to complete. Our field soil survey work is done by hand and consists of digging a small hole down to bedrock with a sharp spade, small samples are taken and the site is restored. We will respect the recreational and aesthetic use of the District lands to minimize any disturbance. Tha nk You, William Reed, Santa Clara Soil Survey Project Leader The United States Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race,color, national origin,gender,religion,age,disability,political beliefs,sexual orientation,and marital or family status.(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information(Braille,large print,audiotape, etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202)720-2600(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination,write USDA,Director,Office of Civil Rights,Room 326W,Whitten Building,14th and Independence Avenue,SW,Washington,DC 20250-9410 or call(202)720-5964(voice or TDD).USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 1 PERMIT TO ENTER This permit to Enter is by and between the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a special District (hereinafter "DISTRICT"), and the United State Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service(hereinafter"USDA-NRCS"). The parties hereby agree as follows: 1.0 PROPERTY District grants USDA-NRCS a Permit onto Enter Foothills, Fremont Older, Los Trancos, Monte Bello, Pichetti Ranch, Rancho San Antonio, and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves, as illustrated in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference (hereinafter"Property") for the purpose and subject to the conditions set forth below. 2.0 PURPOSE This Permit to Enter is for the sole purpose of conducting soil samplings to update the Soil Survey of the Santa Clara County Area. 3.0 PERMIT CONDITIONS The sampling shall be subject to the following permit conditions: 1) USDA-MRCS's employees shall collect approximately 10 to 12 samples per survey day, for a total of approximately 250 soil samples per year. Soil samplings shall be to a maximum depth of five feet at various points off trail in the specified District's preserves. Sampling holes shall be dug by hand and immediately backfilled with the excavated soil and then compacted. 2) As the area to be sampled has had Sudden Oak Death cases, the USDA-NRCS shall pursue soil survey procedures developed by the USAD-NRCS to prevent the possible spread of Sudden Oak Death: 1. Sampling tools will be sprayed with Lysol, 1%bleach solution, or a 70% alcohol solution after digging each hole. 2. Soil samples (100-200 grams)will be placed in ziplock bags and sealed, individual bags sealed in larger secondary ziplock bag. 3. Samples will be heated to 180 degrees F. for 45 minutes to kill all fungus. Samples will then be re-bagged in new ziplock bags for analysis at lab. I 4. Organic layers or duff at the surface will not be sampled. i 1 5. Shoes, gloves and backpacks will be treated with Lysol, 1%bleach solution, or a 70% alcohol solution regularly. 6. Vehicles, if used, will be washed completely on the surface and underneath immediately after driving on dirt roads. 3) Soil samplings shall not be taken during the wet season. Soil samplings shall end by October 15`h, 2003, and may resume by April 15th, 2004, weather permitting. Season may vary based on weather and shall be discussed and coordinated with the I DISTRICT. I 4) USDA-NRCS shall notify District at least one week (7 days) prior to commencement of any work hereunder, indicating the areas to be surveyed. 5) USDA-NRCS shall not remove any vegetation on the Property. 6) USDA-NRCS agrees to directly and promptly make available to District all soil sampling and analysis reports affecting the Property, and all digital GIS layers with it s associated attribute data arising out of or relating to soil sampling activities performed hereunder. 7) USDA-NRCS shall collect and remove garbage in the immediate area where soil sampling will occur. No soil shall be disturbed or removed under this task. 8) Right of entry is limited to USDA-NRCS and its officers, directors, and employees. 9) USDA-NRCS may bring onto the Property only such persons, vehicles, and equipment as are reasonably necessary for the Project. 10)USDA-NRCS shall limit its activities on the Property to the operational area depicted on Exhibit 1 and may not conduct activities on District property outside of this area without the additional written approval of District. 11)USDA-NRCS shall leave the surrounding site in a condition equal to or better that that which was originally found. 12)USDA-NRCS shall notify District upon completion of all work. I 4.0 TERM The term of this Permit shall commence upon its approval by District's Board of Directors. Access to the Property for the purposes of soil sampling shall commence on execution by the District's General Manager for a period not to exceed one year from the date of commencement, provided however, that the period for access may be reasonably 2 extended with the written permission of District's General Manager. Access to the site is allowed from sunrise until one-half hour after sunset. 5.0 NOTICE Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Permit may be personally served on the other party by the party giving such notice, or may be served by U.S. mail to the following address: DISTRICT: L. Craig Britton, General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 (650) 691-0485 (FAX) DISTRICT Ruthie Harari-Kremer, Planning Technician REPRESENTATIVE: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 (650) 691-0485 (FAX) USDA-NRCS: William Reed 5552 Clayton Road Concord, CA 94521 (530) 792-5642 (530) 792-5794 (FAX) (831) 594-1547 (CELL) 6.0 DAMAGE AND LIABILITY USDA-NRCS agrees that the use of equipment and tools on the Property shall be done with all reasonable care, diligence, and precautions to avoid damage to the land, property, or personnel of District or to the public. USDA-NRCS agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, defend, and protect District, its officers, directors, agents, and employees from any and all claims, losses, damages, demands, liabilities, suits, costs, expenses (including all reasonable attorney's fees), penalties,judgements, or obligations whatsoever in connection with any injury, death, or damage to any person or property or pecuniary or monetary loss that results from, arises out of, or in any way relates to the activities of USDA-NRCS under this Permit, both on or off the Project. USDA-NRCS hereby waives all claims and recourse against District, including the right of contribution for loss or damage to property, and releases District from liability to the 3 extent such claims or liability were not caused by the negligence of District and provided such claims are related to USDA-NRCS's activities under this Permit or USDA-NRCS's use of the project site, premises, or facilities under this Permit. USDA-NRCS shall have sole responsibility for the safeguarding of their equipment, property, and personnel (i.e., employees, agents, officers) from any and all injury, death, or damage as a result of this Project. USDA-NRCS shall be responsible for any and all personal injury and property damage on the Property caused by its acts or omissions as a result of any work conducted pursuant to this Permit, and shall indemnify District against any and all claims, liabilities, or losses, including attorneys fees, on account thereof. 7.0 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES INDEMNIFICATION USDA-NRCS shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless District from and against any legal or administrative proceedings brought against District, and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, cleanup costs, remediation costs or other costs, foreseen and unforeseen, including without limitation, attorney, engineering, and other professional or expert fees, due to the existence of any hazardous substance of any kind on, in or under the Property, when the existence of such hazardous substance, in whole or in part, arises out of, is attributable to or is caused by any activities, acts or omissions by USDA-NRCS under this Permit to Enter, either off-site or on-site. 8.0 INSURANCE Throughout the term of this agreement, USDA-NRCS, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect a policy of Worker's Compensation Insurance covering all its employees as required by law. 9.0 CANCELLATION This Permit to Enter shall be cancelable by District upon 48 hours notice to USDA- NRCS. 1H IIJ HI 111 111 The above Permit to Enter has been read and understood and is hereby agreed to and accepted. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE By: Date Name: Title: MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT By: Date L. Craig Britton General Manager I . I 5 EXHIBIT 1 PERMIT TO ENTER - USDA NATURAL S .,t f � ' � w _� RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE IP VY; LuLL !`,I r s`Rancho Sari'-P. - lrr 1_ Antonio OSP� r _` �y.r-�. �` .• \ ! '. � •'� � Y i 1( / Gam'-Y � �1• 4,� � \ � .i -•� �' tix*:.,'�. �r '!`i,.(--. � �--^�/l�, �. � J'� 'fir '\-1' � �, /�i, �. t .., ;�1311 .. `•--L-- - ,..vl !�. 'l ± i � .mow G`�;,. .: ";•-� ;�`'�,��`��� '.i,� ''.^ �.����,/� `---�"��=n �~"�l' � ";n,;..n.`.`'. �' i ( --' •� \ t.�.• 1. 'tY t, .-{� _) ` ✓n \/���� ��-.``,�„ ""' t \ J` � 1 1 7 \. � ( ,.., �,�} `�t.^-S�R e:- ,_ +... 1`� -• ��, �`'^`� vim..��� ' �� �— ��,-..-...�'�jn'� '• 'h; �! �~`1�.-(`/� ��4� � - „-v r I ) t'.,-J Sy,t�i{�y. � ` r`•'t � �� T f`'l �<. �..,•-'Ijyr `�•!�. r/�5 - ���v < �' 1 a r remo .ice }� r •\ S. t,i,L.N1. �' .��.� t .�„�/'�.. `�'-;•' a`.ye7 ,` � �L Ran t7 Ste: �Ji �/����� � \ i; ,�, tv� `-'ir,� r ` ~lam e110 OS §t.-.:.? �\ �✓ <..-.y'/\ ,-/ j\, ��I'.,,-..—.1_,"-''""3��� fir,.-.�"-1'"��' �•� f�r j r•' U11�' `�., \ `,,��\�4a-,�,1 i Q�_ �, ; s� r^:•;i? ' ,i= 1 , p•' �� �� Saratoga` .`�..?;i�'<. �J`�,J\, :1�. .. '. 1,'."� f - r^ y f\"``' i< ✓ f 35 Gap OSPt ✓} > _` 1 \ ' fir.' �' 1 •. ' � (�•., �� r. �"�� � r•'�� t��..�� ../�_ <r•,l�,�' � 9�.✓/...�%?r 1 _ -� �//�-�l'Y^tip�` ���. f\ ; �• r-'. f .yv r r �' Ste.>.,i< +• ./�''tL.�✓,� �' -� _ `l C� 1.�'^;'Z > Ell y ��': 1 �� �� i 7 ?� �'i cJ �� J <t✓vim "^l� i l l_ v _•-�^' ���I t i� �� � � l�' f� i �; i i� i�'^t, f `=} �'ti,(+l � � r V /, f Open Space Preserves Miles \�,,.,�, , ,,�' �s� �, e' r , \ i to be surveyed PERMIT TO ENTER Valid August 15, 2003 to August 15, 2004 This permit authorizes United State Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (including their employees and agents) entry onto District property for the purpose of soil data collection associated with the Santa Clara County Soil Survey. Entry to the interior of the Preserves can be accessed through District gates — please refer to the table below that indicates gates to access each preserve. The District will temporarily provide a combination lock for the duration of this project. The combination for this lock will be determined prior to entering the preserves and will be given at the time the Natural Resources Conservation Service will notify the District. Please make sure to always lock the gate each time you travel through it, whether entering or exiting the preserve. If there are multiple locks on the gate, be sure to re-attach the District's lock in series (that is, attach the lock to the next lock in the series instead of the chain). Please refer to the preserve Trails Map for gate locations and other detailed information about the preserve. Preserve Name Gates Drivable Roads Field Office Foothills No car access none Skyline Field Office Los Trancos No car access none Skyline Field Office Monte Bello M1301, MB02, MB03, Monte Bello Road, Skyline Field Office M1308, MB09 Canyon Trail, Water Wheel Creek Trail Saratoga Gap Upper Stevens Creek Charcoal Road Skyline Field Office County Park gate about 0.1 miles south of LRO1 (on the east side of CA-35) Fremont Older FO01, FO02, FO03, Coyote Ridge Trail, Foothills Field Office and exit through Ranch Road, Hayfield Stevens Creek County Trail, Vista Loop Trail, Park Gate next to Bay View Trail Stevens Creek Road Pichetti Ranch P101 First 0.5 miles of Foothills Field Office Zinfandel Trail, Orchard Loop Trail Rancho San Antonio RS04, RS07 (Exit only), Rhus Ridge Trail, Foothills Field Office RS09, RS 10, W P01, Chamise Trail, Rogue WP04 Valley Trail, Upper High Meadow Trail, PG&E Trail, Mora Trail Prior to your initial visit to the preserves, please provide the District with your summary itinerary for the duration of the work, including approximate dates and times for your trips in each preserve. Prior to entering Foothills, Los Trancos, Monte Bello, or Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves please fax a copy of your itinerary to Craig Beckman, Maintenance and Construction Supervisor, at (65[) � 949-1781 and Ruthie Harari-Kremer, Planning Technician, at (850) 691-0405. If necessary, you can � reach the Skyline Field Office at (650) 949-1840. Prior 0oentering Fremont Older, Pichetti Ranch, � or Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserves please fax a copy of your itinerary to Michael Jurich, Maintenance and Construction Supervisor, at (b5O) 691-2165and Kuthie Hanari-Kremer, Planning Technician, at (650) 691-0485. If necessary, you can reach the Foothills Field Office at (650) 988- 9347. Please contact the Skyline Field Office or Foothills Field Office periodically prior to entering the preserves and inquire about current road conditions, especially during the winter and early spring months. |n the event that preserve roads are impassable because of inclement weather or other concurrent projects, park your vehirle(s) outside gates, making sure that any gates and access entrances are not blocked. Driving On the preserve to reach the project area is allowed under the following conditions: l. Only 4x4 vehicles are allowed on the interior 0fthe preserve. 2. Please limit your driving on the interior of the preserve 86 much 89 possible. 3. Work must be conducted during normal hours Vf operation for the preserve, from sunrise to half and hour after sunset. 4. Vehicles are restricted to designated access roads; noofLroad driving is allowed. 5. Observe the 15 mph speed limit and SlOvv to 5 mph around blind turns or when passing visitors or wildlife. 0. /\|ma4'o watch carefully for wildlife, visitors, ruts, mud, or any other potential hazards. 7. When parking, you must display your parking permit from your mirror. Otherwise, you may be subject tOa citation. � O. Smoking and fires are not permitted on the preserve. 9. Where possible, park to one side of the road. Avoid blocking roads or parking over high grass. 10. Do not block any gates, which may be used for emergency purposes. 11. In case of an emergency, Cal/ 91 1. You may also call the Ranger Dispatch number at (650) 98O-44ll. � l2. Please he aware and cautious of poison oak in the area. When conducting survey work on District lands, please observe the following restrictions: 13. Do not deface or destroy any natural resources on the preserve. Removable pins and stakes are a||nvved as markers. Spray paint is not allowed. 14. Please be careful not to damage the unique rock outcroppings that is characteristic of the area. 15. Other than stakes or pins for the survey work, do not leave any other materials or equipment on-site. When traveling the Preserve car ryihis permit wit h you at all times, even wh en on foot. This is especially important since you will be conducting fieldwork in areas of the preserve that are currently closed to the public. I understand and agree to the terms of this permit: Name and Date (print) Approved by District: Signature Ruthie Harari-Kremer, Planning Technician Regional Open S ice DPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-03-79 Meeting 03-17 August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 10 AGENDA ITEM Schedule a Special Meeting on August 19, 2003 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECO Schedule a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors for Tue y, August 19, 200 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a closed session concerning the annual Board appointee performance evaluations for the General Manager, General Counsel, and Controller. DISCUSSION Staff is recommending that the Board of Directors call for a Special Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. The purpose of this Special Board Meeting is to conduct the annual Board appointee performance evaluations for the General Manager, General Counsel, and Controller. Prepared by: Lisa Zadek, Assistant District Clerk Contact person: L. Craig Britton, General Manager 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org OEM Board of Directors: Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little, Nanette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C. Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton Regional Open , ice R-03-71 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 03-17 August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 11 AGENDA ITEM Permit for United States Department of the Army to Enter�he Former Almaden Air Force Station on Mt. Umunhum for Exploratory Testing and Monitoring at Siefra Azul Open Space Preserve r GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMEND A S 1. Determine that the proposed actions are categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)based on findings contained in this report. 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute the attached Permit to Enter allowing the United States Department of the Army(Army Corps of Engineers)access to the property to test the soil and groundwater to determine whether toxic contamination is present.Further, authorize the General Manager to approve any minor corrections, or grammatical or technical revisions to the attached Permit to Enter which do not involve a change to a material term, subject to the approval of the District General Counsel. DISCUSSION In 1986,the District acquired the former Almaden Air Force Station and all of its remaining facilities on Mount Umunhum and Mt. Thayer(see Report 86-20),with the intent of eventually restoring the site to a natural condition and providing public access to the 3,486-foot high peak.Mount Umunhum offers spectacular panoramic vistas, from Monterey Bay to San Francisco. As a part of the purchase,the federal government agreed to clean up all containerized,above-ground and associated toxic substances. After the District purchased the property,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers removed a number of underground fuel tanks and electrical transformers as a part of the agreed upon clean up process. Unfortunately, it is possible that toxic materials may still exist on the abandoned site,requiring that the area be closed to the public until a determination of site conditions is made. For some time, the District has been working with community, state, and congressional leaders to obtain federal funding to complete any necessary clean up of the site and allow it to be opened for low-intensity recreational use. With a notable amount of local support, Congressman Michael Honda worked to have the project included in the FY 2003 Defense Appropriations bill. As a result, and on a phased basis,the Army Corps of Engineers needs to test various site areas to determine if additional clean up is required. The areas to be tested for potential toxic contamination under this permit to enter include soils and groundwater in the vicinity of the previously removed underground storage tanks,pumps, and transformers, as well as several other locations identified by the District following the previous clean up. These areas include historic military dump sites,cesspool areas, and disposal sites. 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org - Web site: www.openspace.org ®RFP�EEST Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton R-03-71 Page 2 CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of investigative surveying,making test borings, installing temporary groundwater monitoring wells, and carrying out other exploratory work as may be necessary to complete the investigation.Upon completion of sampling, each test hole or temporary monitoring well will be backfilled and compacted to grade with the surrounding surface. No hazardous material cleanup activities are proposed at this time. If it is determined that such action may be necessary, further analysis and investigation will occur prior to any decisions being made regarding any action on the site. CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is categorically exempt from CEQA(California Environmental Quality Act)under Sections 15304, and 15306 of the CEQA guidelines. Section 15304 exempts minor alterations to land, including minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. Section 15306 exempts information collection, such as basic data collection or resource evaluation that does not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. Prepared by: Sandy Sommer, AICP/ASLA, Senior Planner Contact person: Same as above PROJECT:Almaden AFS page I of 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY RIGHT-O&ENTRY FOR SURVEY AND EXPLORATION PROJECT: Almaden AFS OWNER: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,hereinafter called"Owner", hereby grants to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,hereinafter called"Government", a right-of- entry upon the property located in the State of California, County of Santa Clara,portion of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve("Preserve"),described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 575-9-11, 575- 9-12, 562-8-7, 562-8-2, 562-8-8, 562-8-4, 562-8-1, 562-8-2, 562-8-3 as shown on the attached map. PURPOSE: The work proposed at Mt. Umunhum consists of vertical profiling at various locations on the former Almaden Air Force Station to determine if groundwater contamination is present,and if so what type and going in what direction. This information would be use to determine the relative risk for justification for future funding. The Owner hereby grants to the Government an irrevocable right to enter the lands herein described at any time within a period of 12 months from the date of this instrument, in order to survey,make test borings, install temporary groundwater monitoring wells, and carry out such other exploratory work, including groundwater sampling from existing monitoring wells, as may be necessary to complete the investigation being made of said lands by the Government or its contractors. CONDITIONS: This right-of-entry is issued subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Government will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from governmental and regulatory agencies, and following all pertinent procedures. 2. The Government shall provide written documentation to District detailing the final plan for the survey and exploratory work, including the mapped locations of work, at least 30 days prior to commencement of the work. The District may if necessary, at its sole discretion, request further documentation prior to commencement of work, for purposes of fulfilling the District's legal obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Work shall be conducted only during normal hours of operation for the Preserve, from sunrise to half an hour after sunset, unless otherwise approved in writing by the District. PROJECT:Almaden AFS page 2 of 4 4.No mature trees shall be removed without the District's written approval. S. This pen-nit includes the right of ingress and egress on lands of the Owner herein described,provided that such ingress and egress is necessary for testing vehicles and support equipment. Grading to create roads for vehicular travel is prohibited. Close and lock any closed gate immediately after traveling thorough it, to prevent unauthorized entry. Do not block any gates,roads,or emergency access routes. 6. The Owner also agrees to notify all tenants, lessees,caretakers, or others of the grants hereby permitted to the Government under the terms of this agreement. 7. All tools, equipment,and other property taken upon or placed open the land by the Government shall remain the property of the Government and may be removed by the Government at any time within a reasonable period after the expiration of this permit or right-of- entry. 8. If any action of the Government's employees or agents in the exercise of this right-of- entry results in the damage to the Owner's real property,the Government will, at its option either repair such damage or make an appropriate settlement with the Owner. In no event shall such repair or settlement exceed the fair market value of the fee title to the real property at the time immediately preceding such damage. The Government's liability under this clause is only to the extent provided by Congress in the Federal Tort Claims Act(28 U.S.C. Sec 2671 et seq.)and may not exceed appropriations available for such payment.Nothing contained in this agreement may be considered as implying that Congress will at a later date appropriate funds sufficient to meet deficiencies. The provisions of this clause are without prejudice to any rights the Owner may have to make a claim under applicable laws for any other damages than provided herein. 9. The Government agrees that the use of equipment and tools on the District's property shall be effected with all reasonable diligence, and with precautions to avoid damage to the land, property,or personnel of District,or to the public. 10. The Government and its subcontractors shall have the sole responsibility for the safeguard of their equipment,property, and personnel (i.e. employees, agents, officers) from any and all injury,death, or damage. 11. Once sampling has been completed, landscaping will be returned to its original condition, and holes created by testing equipment or from placement of temporary monitoring wells will be backfilled and compacted to grade with the surrounding surface. 12. The Government shall notify Owner upon completion of all work and arrange for a site inspection with District's staff before vacating the site. 13. The Government shall provide Owner with a copy of any data,test results, sample logs,reports,notes,memos, and results of the survey and exploratory work. PROJECT:Almaden AFS page 3 of 4 INSURANCE: Throughout the term of this agreement,the Government's contractor, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect comprehensive automobile and general liability insurance covering bodily and personal injury and property damage. Limits shall be not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. This right-of-entry is not valid without Government contractor's insurance in effect as shown on the attached Certificate of Insurance,which is made a part of this agreement. The policy shall name the District as additional insured. Throughout the term of this agreement, the Government's contractor, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect a policy of Worker's Compensation Insurance covering all its employees as required by law. Throughout the term of this agreement,the Government's contractor, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect a policy of Pollution Liability Insurance written on a Contractor's Pollution Liability form or other form acceptable to Owner providing coverage for liability arising out of sudden and accidental pollution, and remediation.The policy limit shall be no less than $1,000 per calim and aggregate. Such insurance policies shall not be cancelled or materially changed without thirty(30)days' advance written notice to the District at the address shown under notices. The undersigned hereby warrants that by their signature that the are owner of said roe or Y property riY have the legal authority to grant the permit subject to the aforementioned terms and conditions. WIT NESS MY HAND this dayof 2 003. General Manager of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Signature: ,General Manager L. Craig Britton ACCEPTED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA By i Certificate of Insurance This certificate is not an insurance policy. It is evidence of the types of coverages and forms of endorsements existing in regard to the insurance policies specified and neither amends the requirements of the contract to which this certificate pertains,nor amends,extends or alters the coverage afforded by the specified insurance policies or the terms,exclusions and conditions of such policies. Name and Address of Certificate Holder:Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,CA 94022 This is to certify that the(insurers): A. B. C. D. Have issued policies of insurance as indicated below to(Contractor): And are aware that said policies will apply to work performed under Contract/Purchase Requisition Number: Project: Type of Coverage Amount of Coverage Policy Number Expiration Date A. Workers Compensation Employer's Liability Statutory A. A. $ per accident (Minimum$500,000 per accident) B.Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability BI&PD Combined B. B. Insurance(Bodily Injury and Property Damage) $ per occurrence Including Contractual Liability,Completed (Minimum$1,000,000 per occurrence) Operations and Products Liability insurance, Coverage for Explosion,Collapse and Underground Hazards and Owners&Contractors Protective. C.Automobile Liability Insurance extending to Owned BI&PD Combined C. C. Non-Owned and Hired Automobiles and $ per occurrence Contractual Liability (Minimum$1,000,000) D. D. D.Other insurance -Pollution Liability $ per claim&aggregate E. E. (Minimum$1,000,000) E.Other insurance $ per occurrence It is further certified that: l. Each of the above policies contains a provision that the policy shall not be cancelled or materially changed without 30 days prior written notice to the S Midpeninsula Regional Open ace District. P g P p 2. The policy(s)listed under A above contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 3. The policies listed under B and C above shall name the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as additional insured with respect to the operations performed under this agreement between the District and Contractor. 4. That coverage afforded on behalf of the District under B and C above shall be primary insurance and any other insurance available to the District under any other policies shall be excess over the insurance outlined above. Upon written request by the holder of this certificate,the Insurer or his/her agent will furnish a copy of any policy cited above,certified to be a true and complete copy of the original. Authorized Insurance Agent or Broker(print): Name: Address: Signature Telephone: Date OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR• •SA-TA LAAA COUN7v, CALIFORNIA / � �oOK oA6E I r Y/ BK op � I�pE. 4p Sp4 CC '^ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT / ,� M/p,/,NA's LC 4 e. 600 qo 0 Alk eo M.8. I v —� /. {('Y CunpiU n cunlamxlce wm sx i17 0'ne F.F;s�snrt p�*pays nnr II \� / E11�ctve For Aa Y"1999-2000 1 � � �,�• I a•ANFr:rE E. ;rri11E — AS;ESSOR O F F I C E O F COUNTY A S S E S S O R S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y, C A L I F O R N I A ©3K PAGE 575 9 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL'•. N 1q. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 2.57 AC 0 1 SEE DETAILA 4p0. N SL a Arr°o S� °O d ioi C l r � \ e rI r A z MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DIST. i^�Q COURSE DISTANCE •C ............. . '9 �° '4 w:X MIDPENINSULA 1 1 a11 o xr az 9IE 91 O m 'MIDPENINSULA' 1 9c is x REGIONAL. OPEN•' Y r ro , ''11,0� N, J2 2 y_issrxr ± O 8 SPACE DIST. 4 �S I.'REGIDNAI D 10'ODAZGR' RCJS363/ M70P DIST. c IEN SipCE �e ° 5 'A y % ru sr ENJNSUr� - -. !s r.ro cEEn ck 0 1� Rf ONaL OPEN`SPAS DJSTRrCT.`s Z •`e ; PARCEL 2 / 1a 3 24.602 AC 52 . 1i xse 48 AC. Y ao p , ns rr ,f1 tta 9 net v a+' O e �i Y 9° MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 6~B?S+""'-•�� nw 1 so w+ a ss ° 91r: 4 a r _ mm i s51 3L532 AC. 9 43331 AC. as a0 1S0.o PARCEL 3 Bj90 PARCEL l 19 9]14 I1Z] Y 1999 41 R.O.S. 157-M 36 LAWRENCE E.STONE- ASSESSOR Cod-tra map Ia ene .t pwpDsm 04 Compiled under R.h T.Code,Sec 327. Effeeliw Roll Y—20W-2003 Regional Open ice -------------- R-03-81 Meeting 03-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 12 AGENDA ITEM Authorization for the General Manager to Approve Contracts Not to Exceed $25,000, Including Settlement of Claims and Approval of Amendment to Board Resolution No. 9945 to Conform to Current Board Contracting Policies GENERAL COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve the attached Resolution authorizing the General Manager to approve contracts not to exceed $25,000, including settlement of claims. 2. Amend Board Resolution No. 99-45 to conform to current Board contracting policies. DISCUSSION In April 2002, the Governor signed into law AB 93 5, a bill sponsored by the District and carried by Assemblyman Joe Simitian to expedite District contracting. The bill amended Section 5549 of the Public Resources Code to increase the dollar amount of contracts which can be approved by the General Manager from $10,000 to $25,000. This brought the District into conformity with the authority held by East Bay Regional Park District and helped expedite the District contracting process. To implement AB 935, on July 24, 2002 the Board adopted a new Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and Professional Consultant Selection and Purchasing Policy(see Report No. R-02-94). Among other things, the Policy authorized the General Manager to approve contracts not exceeding $25,000. These expenditures are reported to the Board and appear on the Claims List. General Counsel is recommended two further amendments to have consistent District policies and which will help District staff conduct the District's day to day business. First, prior inconsistent District resolutions need to be revised. Resolution 9945, adopted by the Board in November 1999 (see Report No. R-99-148), and Resolution 97-30 adopted by the Board on August 13, 1997(see Report No. R-97-115), reflect the prior General Manager contracting authority level of$10,000 and need to be updated to the current$25,000 level. Accordingly, it is recommended that the entire third section of Resolution 9945 (attached) pertaining to District contracting be repealed, as it has been entirely superceded by the District's new Public Contract Policy. Second, it is recommended that the General Manager's authority to approve settlement agreements for legal claims be brought in line with his overriding contracting authority. The current authority level of$2,500 is significantly low and out of date, doesn't achieve the purposes 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 a E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org # web site:www.openspace.org ff-1.EE- Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton R-03-81 Page 2 of AB 953, and doesn't reflect the needs of the General Manager to resolve contract disputes or other legal claims on a day to day basis. These could include public works contract disputes, employment related claims, and claims related to damage to District property as a result of encroachments. For example, with the current cost of construction, it is not unusual for encroachment damage to District land, including remediation work, to reach the $25,000 level. The value of resolution of a new dispute over an illegal culvert installation at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve will near$25,000 when costs of remediation and staff time are calculated. The General Manager needs to have the authority to accept and sign agreements resolving both claims the District has made against third parties, as well as claims submitted to the District by third parties. These types of contracts would also be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting. This update is also appropriate in light of the District's current membership in the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority(CJPIA). Settlement authority of covered third party claims is vested in the CJPIA(of course recommendations of the insured agencies are carefully considered by CJPIA). Claims not exceeding $10,000 are submitted to the CJPIA adjusters, Carl Warren and Company with a recommended action. Claims exceeding $10,000 are submitted directly to CJPIA staff for handling. Increasing the General Manager authority as recommended would also facilitate the District being able to process and execute any settlement and release documents required by CJPIA to complete the claims handling process. In summary, the revisions to the attached Resolution will bring all of the District's contract policies into consistency and will assist staff in more efficiently accomplishing day to day District business. The Board would be informed in writing of the approval of such agreements. Prepared by: Susan Schectman, General Counsel Contact person: Same as above RESOLUTION NO. 39 �0 - RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER TO APPROVE. SEUU, OR DENY CERTAIN-LEGAL CLAIMS AGAINST DISM EX-ECLU-EAU.NECESSARXDQCla4ENTSn RESQUESUCE"ANS AND TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO PERMITS TO ENTER DISTRICT PROPERTY AND-TO CONTRACT FOR THE PA)WENT FOR SERAKES, SUPPLIES, MATERIALS,OR LABOR PURSUANT TO PU13LIC RESOURCES 64DE'SEC44ON-334 (b) WHEREAS,in the normal course of District business,there may be occasions when a person or entity will make a Legal Claim against the District for money_and-whm-ftDjAddxnakc*.A1& Im %Mjo-co on and WHEREAS,it is in the best interests of the District for the General Manager to have the authority to promptly compromise, settle,approve,or resolve disputes or Legal Claims,j&dud jg&j&gWXLaj= which involve Le gal-Claunsda for money-qq�m ig b agamst the District not exceeding two thousand five hundred,"lars-42,15W)bygn -fiygAhQu=dAQUam-($ Q n tL _ __ _2L_Q in value; WHEREAS, in the normal course of District business,there are occasions when the Board issues a permit to a government agency or third party to enter District real property to perform certain physical work thereon;and WHEREAS,the Board of Directors determines that it is necessary and convenient for the purposes of the District that the General Manager be authorized to approve amendments of a minor nature to such permits to enter District property;and WHEREAS, Section 5538 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the Board of Directors to fix the duties of the General Manager;and WHEREAS, Section 5541 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the Board to do all things necessary and convenient in order to control,operate,and maintain its open space preserves;and WHEREAS, Section 5549(b)of the Public Resources Code authorizes the Board to delegate to the General Manager the authority to enter into contracts for services,supplies,materials,and labor not exceeding the amounts set forth therein;and )WHEREAS,the Board of Directors determines that it is necessary and convenient for the efficient operation of the day-to-day activities of the District that the General Manager have the authority described in this Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: A— Legal Claims The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula,Regional Open Space District hereby expressly authorizes and delegates to the District's General Manager the authority to perform any acts required to consider,deny, allow,compromise,or settle Legal Claims of any kind or nature-broup i ainst the District that do not exceed two-thousand SZ5-QQna-lu. The General Manager shall report to the District's Board of Directors at its next regular meeting any action taken to consider,deny,allow,compromise,or settle Legal Claims i .1h-g- nst the District that-do-not-,exeeed--&2-j5- W. B. AMENDMENTS TO PERMITS TO ENTER The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District hereby expressly authorizes and delegates to the District's General Manager the authority to approve minor amendments to permits to enter District property to third parties that have been previously approved by the Board of Directors,provided the following criteria are met: I. The amendment is minor and there is no significant change in the area, scope,or type of work to be undertaken by the Permittee. 2. The work shall be done in such a way as to minimize damage to District land, shall be conducted in full compliance with the Resource Management policies and Land Use Regulations of the District, impacts shall be fully mitigated and the land restored to its prior condition upon completion;and. 3. The form of the Amendment to the Permit to Enter is approved by District Legd-Qg=rW Counsel. The General Manager shall report to the District's Board of Directors at its next regular meeting any permit amendment approved by the General Manager pursuant to this Resolution. PUBLIC WORKS.PROFESSIOMAL SERNWES AND OTHER CONTRACTS .................The-Board-ofDirectors-of the-Midpeninsula,Regional-Open-Spaee-Distriet hereby expressly A to the deelegates ......angeF-0 Seefi(m 5549(b}-------------------:T.lt&4CYefiefal..N4arutW-imy-bind-the-Distnet.,.Yiitbout-adver4ising-and-widimA--wntten-eontmet; -1) fbr-the payment fef supplies,watefials, labor,ef othef vWuabl-e eans—WH 63F any puTese other-th new eenstmetion of any building, stmetufe, or impfovement in ameunts not e*eeeding tea thousand dollars (-$4-4;000)-and{2}-for-t-he-payment--fef-suppliery,-nmterials,-not-or--labor--for-aew-constf uctioeof-any building;-stfuetufe,or-imprevernent-in amounts-exceeding twenty-five thousan&($25,4W)....All expendituf-es shall be.-,—Fwd to the BeaFd of Difeeter-s at its next Feguhff meeting. C. - 9 _"Wu k Wmbqr 17.,_ .is revealed inentirety. Claims No. 03-14 Meeting 03-17 Date 08/13/03 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 6196 $149.32 Accent&Artech Lamination Supplies 6197 $313.47 Adcom/BHS Headsets 6198 $151.13 ADT Security Services Burglar Alarm Service 6199 $1,735.85 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Service and Repairs 6200 $127.01 ANG Newspapers Legal Advertisement 6201 $39.39 AT&T Telephone Service 6202 $86.55 Baron Welding&Iron Works,Inc. Plumbing Supply 6203 $361.98 Brim Tractor Company,Inc. Tractor Accessories 6204 $122.49 Browning-Ferris Industries Garbage Service 6205 $19.67 California Water Service Company Water Service 6206 $3,788.40 *1 City of Los Altos Sewer Service-Distel Circle 6207 $160.00 Clark Pest Control Pest Control 6208 $81.19 Cole Supply Co.,Inc. Janitorial Supplies 6209 $5,794.63 Columbia Printing Map Printing-Sierra Azul,Plugas Ridge&St.Joseph 6210 $456.68 Costco Supplies 6211 $431.00 CO-Industries,Inc. Volunteer Supplies 6212 $843.49 Cresco Equipment Rentals Tractor Rental 6213 $130.00 Decatur Electronics,Inc. Radar Certification 6214 $75.00 Del Rey Building Maintenance Lights Replaced&Repaired Water Faucet-Admin.Office 6215 $1,844.36 Design Concepts Brochures&Business Cards 6216 $258.98 Design Signs Reflective Lettering/Numbers for Gates 6217 $183.88 Ed Jones Co.,Inc. Uniforms 6218 $2,480.97 Emergency Vehicle Systems Equipment Repairs 6219 $2,117.73 *2 Employment Development Dept. 2001/2002 SDI Corrections 6220 $25.00 Environmental Volunteers Membership Dues 6221 $990.00 Ergo Vera Ergonomic Training Classes 6222 $6,358.85 *3 First Bankcard 612.77-Training&Conf.Exp. 169.95-Internet Services 230.46-Software&Computer Equip. 2750.48-Field Equip.Supp.&Uniform Exp. 297.30-Special Events Expenses 152.08-Books 1718.44-Planning&Building Permit 427.37-Local Business Meeting 6223 $221.47 Forestry Supplies,Inc. Field Supplies 6224 $22.97 Foster Brothers Pad Locks 6225 $2,523.20 Freyer&Laureta,Inc. Consulting Services-Old Page Mill Road 6226 $52.31 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 6227 $2,896.11 Gardenland Power Equipment Field Supplies&Equipment 6228 $542.46 Goodco Press,Inc. Printing Services-Labels&Envelopes 6229 $600.00 Heather Heights Roads Association Road Dues-Saratoa Gap 6230 $900.00 International Training Resources Defensive Tactics Seminar 6231 $2,134.46 Jakaby Engineering Consulting Services-Virginia Mill Trail 6232 $1,118.04 John Shelton,Inc. Field Supplies 6233 $250.00 Kate Hall Training-Cervical Collar&Backboard Use Review 6234 $1,376.21 Kinko's Printing Services-FEIR,Virginia Mill Plan,&Old Page Mill Plan 6235 $136.79 Kwik Key Lock&Safe Co.Inc. Lock&Key Services 6236 $528.64 Los Altos Garbage Co. Refuse Services Page 1 of 3 Claims No. 03-14 Meeting 03-17 Date 08/13/03 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 6237 $36.20 MCI Long Distance Telephone Service 6238 $118.57 MegaPath Networks Internet Connection-DSL Line SFO 6239 $25,000.00 ## Molica,Ralph Settlement Agreement 6240 $300.00 Nitz,Ken Reim.Conference-Special District Conference 6241 $65.00 Northern Energy, Inc. Propane Tank Rental 6242 $93.00 Novagraph Chartist Software 6243 $2,960.88 Old Republic Title Company Title&Escrow-Presentation Center 6244 $882,72 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Equipment&Supplies 6245 $654.68 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 6246 $35.00 '4 Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Registration Fee 6247 $180.99 Peninsula Digital Imaging Printing-Old Page Mill Plan 6248 $500.36 PIP Printing Volunteer Newsletters 6249 $1,200.00 Portola Park Heights Property 2003 Road Assessment 6250 $48.13 Precision Engravers,Inc. Name Tag Engraving 6251 $95.72 Pringle Tractor Co. Tractor Supplies 6252 $419.40 PT Armor,Inc. Uniform Expense 6253 $8.05 Rancho Hardware&Garden Shop Field Supply 6254 $235.00 Ray L.Hellwig Services Co.,Inc. HVAC Repair-Admin.Office&Tenant Space 6255 $36.13 Rayne Water Conditioning Water Conditioner Service 6256 $51.20 Regal Dodge Truck Supply 6257 $125.17 Robert's Hardware Field Supplies&Equipment 6258 $145.00 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 6259 $781.56 San Jose Mercury News Legal Display Ad. 6260 $511.21 San Jose Water Company Water Service 6261 $10.00 San Mateo Co.Public Health Lab. Tick Testing 6262 $13,000.00 '5## San Mateo Local Agency Formation Coastal Annexation Application Fee Commission 6263 $325.00 Santa Clara County-Dept.of Env. Permit-Hazardous Material Storage Health 6264 $44.00 Santa Clara County-Office of Sheriff Fingerprinting-New Recruit 6265 $2,006.00 Seever,Richard DBA Rural Pig Mgmnt. Pig Control Services 6266 $3,900.00 Skyline Builders,Inc. Demolish-La Honda House Former McDonald Res. 6267 $157.95 "6 Skyline County Water District Water Service 6268 $200.00 Smith,Malcom Public Affairs Consultant-Resolutions 6269 $425.00 Society for Ecological R st r ti n Conference Re i tr ti n M mber hi - .RoessI r 6270 $7,118.07 '7 Sommer,Sandy Reimbursement-Building Permit Fee 6271 $600,00 Sorich Enterprises Road Dues 6272 $83.00 South Bay Regional Public Safety Training-B.Guzman 6273 $241.83 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense 6274 $1,600.00 System for Public Safety Recruitment-Background Research 6275 $770.91 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 6276 $191.25 Timothy C.Best,CEG Consulting Services-Pulgas Ridge Road Assessment 6277 $884.97 Tires on the Go Tires&Tire Repairs 6278 $25.74 Turf&Industrial Equipment Co. Vehicle Supplies 6279 $34.87 United Parcel Service Parcel Shipping 6280 $2,903.75 ## United Rentals Highway Tech. Signs 6281 $111.44 Verizon Pager&Pager Service 6282 $600.00 Wolfe,Roberta Recording Services Page 2 of 3 � � Claims No. 03-14 Meeting 03-17 Date 00/13/03 � Revised � � MidpeninsuUa Regional Open Space District � � # Amount Wonne Description 8283 $225.00 Woodside&Portoa Private Patrol Patrol Servimoo-vvindymn 6284 $111.27 Xpouim Fax Broadcast System Services 0285R $06.55 All Laser Service Toner Cartridges 6288R $3.500.00 Bay Area Open Space Council Annual Pledged Support-Greenbelt Alliance 6287R S1.410.00 Biotic Resources Group Consu|dngSomiooe-VirginioMiUPnojem 6280R $2.597.00 gNY Western Trust Company Note Paying Agent Fuen'1SV9 Second Issue Bonds 6208R $14.50 Contra Costa County Recorder's Office Death Certificate � 0280R $2.D4O�00 Go�|Oend&A000no(oo.|no� Surveyor Services � | � 0291R $13.78500 ## Gary Mapdel Excavating Grading Svc-Skyline&Foothills � � 0282R $111.98 Gondmo Press Inc. Printing Services-Business Cards 6393R $85.80 Los Altos Typewriter Typewriter Repair � 6294R $215.00 National Recreation&Park Association Membership Renewal 0285R $1.002.50 NoxnuxYVemt Equipment Rental 6396R $706.41 Office Depot Office Supplies 6297R $887.85 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 6238R $222D0 Petty Cash Conference&Training Expense,Office&Field Supplies, Vehicle Mileage Roimhumomont'wdunmorSuppliao. Out of Town Q Local Bus.Meeting Expense 0289R $25�00 °O San Mateo County Filing Fee-Notice ofDmonninaoon-Pu|gun Staging Area 6300R $25.00 ~g Santa Cruz County Filing Fee-Notice Determination-Long Ridge 6301R $134.18 West Group On-Line Legal Services Total $139.392-44 ^1 Urgent Check Issued 7/3803 ^2 Urgent Check Issued 0n003 `3 Urgent Check Issued 7/3103 ^4 Urgent Check Issued I0&03 ^5## Urgent Check Issued 7/2V03' � Expenditure m Date Exceeds � 1OK But Not 25K °O Urgent Check Issued 00703 ~7 Urgent Check Issued 7/29/03 ~8 Urgent Check Issued 8/1203 � � `V Urgent Check Issued VU203 � � ## Expenditure to Date Exceeds 1VK But Not 25K � � Page uma � Regional Open Space ......+„w.w.w...................... MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT To: Board of Directors From: L. Craig Britton, General Manager Date: August 8, 2003 Re: FYI's 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 9 E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org e i na1 Open Soce ----------------------- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT July 28, 2003 Mike Schaller, Planner San Mateo County Planning and Building Division 455 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 Subject: Review of Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Nextel Proposed Cellular Facility, BLD2003-00785 On behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Building Plans submitted by Nextel of California for a Proposed Cellular Facility on the District's property known as Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. The District appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the permit application to ensure the proper protection of surrounding open space lands, scenic vistas, and prevent inconveniences to public use on our land and requests that the following comments be included as part of the conditions of approval for the building permit. Scheduling All onsite construction work should be limited to the dry season, from June to October 15 to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation due to surface runoff. Dust Suppression Exposed surfaces should be watered or covered with loose straw and excavated spoils should be covered using an erosion control blanket to minimize dust emissions due to construction or high winds. Spoils Excavated spoils should be removed from the site and disposed of appropriately; spoils should not be dispersed onsite. Compaction Any backfilling should be properly compacted, particularly for any trench work conducted on hillside slopes to prevent the potential for erosion gullies. Straw Bales Please ensure that a detail of proper straw bale installation is included in the construction plans. Straw bales must be installed properly for effective use and should be inspected daily and removed or replaced if damaged. Straw bales typically deteriorate within three months when wet. Remove straw bales after upslope areas are permanently stabilized. Lastly, we request that straw bales be certified weed-free to prevent the inadvertent spread of invasive or exotic plants. Loose Straw/Straw Mulch Straw mulch should be scattered over disturbed and backfilled areas for erosion protection. Please ensure that straw mulch is certified weed-free to prevent the inadvertent spread of 330 Distel Circle a Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 9 Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 * E-mail: mrosdCopenspace.org * Web site: www.openspace.org OFR'E Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton invasive or exotic plants. The District recommends blowing straw mulch at 30001b/acre and punching the straw into the soil using a shovel for greatest effectiveness. Re-vegetating/Re-seeding All exposed areas should be re-seeded using locally native seed. The District recommends using the following seed mix: Common name Scientift Name ibWbag % CA brome Bromus carinatus 15 38% Squirrel tail Elymus multisetus can be added Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus 10 25% Meadow barley 10 25% Purple needle grass Nassella pulchra 4 10% CA poppy Eschscholzia californica 1 3% blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium bellum can be added 40 100°!a Seed should first be applied to the exposed soil and then covered with a layer of straw mulch to help hold down the seed and prevent it from washing off the soil surface. If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact District Planner, Ana Ruiz, at(650)691- 1200. As landowner of the property, the District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Building Permit Application. Sincerely, f Cathy VSpo`bdbury,ASQ1,CP Planning Manager CW:ar cc: l*Directo s John Dickey, Real Property Specialist San Mateo County Parks—Edgewood County Park Regional Open Vce 1 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT July 23, 2003 i Honorable Thomas J. Davids Cecily Harris, Parks and Recreation Commission Chair City of San Carlos 600 Elm Street PO Box 3009 San Carlos, CA 94070-1309 RE: City of San Carlos Trails Plan Dear Mayor Davids and Chairperson Harris: Thank you for your letter of June 20, 2003 suggesting trail connections to Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve from the city's expanded trails plan at Los Vientos Way, Brittan Avenue, and Crestview Dive. The District is currently in the process of designing and implementing a federally funded improvement project at the preserve. This important project includes the demolition of the former Hassler Health Home sewage treatment facility, and construction of a second parking area and three new trails that will provide much needed public access to the preserve. In addition to providing immediate access, the new trails at the preserve will eventually become part of a loop trail system connecting to the Crystal Springs Trail South, trails in Edgewood County Park, the San Francisco Watershed, and the Ralston Trail. This portion of the loop trail is identified as the East Ridge Boundary Trail in the San Mateo County Trails Plan. The District is also interested in providing connections from the regional system to include San Carlos' trail system. In addition to having access to the trails at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, hikers starting in San Carlos ideally will be able to cross into Edgewood County Park, San Francisco Watershed lands, and other regional trails without interruption. We look forward to working with city representatives to establish trail connections to Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve and the regional trail system. District staff will be in contact with the city as suggested in your letter. Sincerely, L. Craig Brit 'n General Manager LCB:mdv:ak cc: MROSD Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton CITY OF SAN CARLOS CITY HALL IT; �� ,�* PARKS AND RECREATION 600 ELM STREET v� DEPARTMENT P.O.BOX 3009 TELEPHONE(650)802-4421 SAiQ CARLOS,CA 94070-1 3 09 FAX(650)595-6727 t ti WEB:htr ://www. i.san-cad os.ca.us June 20, 2003 Deane Little, Chair Midpeninsula Recreational Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Ms. Little: The City of San Carlos is preparing a plan to expand our existing trail system and connect as many of these trails as possible so that users may enjoy an uninterrupted hiking experience. We are interested in extending this "connectivity" to include Midpeninsula Regional Open Space at the Pul as Ridge Open Space Preserve. We anticipate that hikers will cross between San Carlos and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space land at Los Vientos, the end of Brittan Avenue, and Crestview Drive. The attached map identifies these locations, as items 2, 5, 10 and 15. We are requesting a meeting with you or your delegate to discuss this matter further. Please call Vicky Galea at (650) 802-4421 to arrange a meeting. Sincerely, Thomas J. Davids Cecily Harris Mayor Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission BEW:alo/vm g Attachment cc: L. Craig Britton General Manager RECYCLED PAPER SAN CARLOS POTENTIAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS Department of Parks and Recreation 14. Top Priority 13. Heather School -FZ aim I ari�s��. rW , �~ ��\ , t� S i �,r.... _. _ A/A , . '12 1 N I , i. V 9 ' Hncrsal He 400 SW�S—t 315 4-1 Rd 1.7 F—.slrael Legend 11 8. Existing Trails Proposed Trails Potential Connections Belmont Trails San Carlos City Limits 15— -TC: San Carlos Parks 10. 12. City Owned Parcels 111. M 14, =7: 0 0,05 0A 02 03 0.4 Exhibit A POTENTIAL SAN CAR.LOS TRAIL CONNECTIONS April 14, 2003 FIRST PRIORITY 1. LYNTON/OAKLEY AVE TO CLUB DRIVE TO WITHERIDGE RD. TO BELMONT TRAIL SYSTEM. This connection will connect the proposed Devonshire trail system to Belmont' s existing trail system and beyond. 2. LOS VIENTOS TO PULGAS RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE. This connection eases access between proposed Devonshire trail system and Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve as well as the San Francisco Watershed lands. The end of the street is at the boundary of the preserve and is adjacent to the San Francisco Watershed lands. The Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District has a plan that places a trail within 100 yards of this connection. The County of San Mateo proposed East Ridge trail passes here as well. 3. DEVONSHIRE TRAIL SYSTEM TO CRESTVIEW ACROSS EXISTING EASEMENT. This connection is an important alternate route to #7 as it is at the other end of the canyon. Review of'the approvals indicates this easement acts as both a driveway for a parcel and access to a landlocked open space parcel. 4. HIGHLAND AREA/HEATHER PARK TO BIG CANYON/EATON TRAIL SYSTEM. This connection would allow for connection between the Devonshire Canyon system and Big Canyon/Eaton Parks and would expand Big Canyon Park trails. This connection has the benefit of much currently city owned land and trails. Permission would be needed from 3-4 property owners across steep hillside portions of their properties. 5. END OF BRITTAN TO PULGAS RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE. This connection will allow access from Big Canyon and Eaton trails to Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve via Crestview Park, current connecting walkways and city land. This is also within approximately 100 yards of a proposed trail in Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. 6. CRANFIELD AVENUE TO CLUB DRIVE TO WITHERIDGE IN BELMONT This is a paper street, currently overgrown and is a trail listed by the Trails Center. It is not used by South County Fire. 7. EATON PARK TO CITY OWNED PARCEL OFF LA MESA DRIVE VIA LOMA ROAD TO EDGEWOOD PARK. This potential connection would use some existing access roads and seek permission from private landowners to provide a more direct connection to the Eaton park, Big Canyon systems. The terminus would be close to Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve and across the street from the Edgewood Park entrance. SECOND PRIORITY 8. OAKLEY/DEVONSHIRE TO CRESTVIEW DRIVE AND VISTA PARK ! This connection links upper Devonshire Blvd to Crestview Drive at Vista Park (potential new trail) and near Normandy Drive (via existing unimproved trail) 9. UNIMPROVED CITY LOT (ACROSS CRESTVIEW DRIVE FROM VISTA PARK) TO SAN FRANCISCO WATERSHED LANDS) This connection would connect the proposed Devonshire trail system to the proposed north-south trail in the County Master plan called the East Ridge Trail over the San Francisco Watershed lands and would connect to existing Sheep Camp trail and other county trails, the Belmont trail system (north), Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, Edgewood park and county trails (south). 10. CRESTVIEW DRIVE TO SAN FRANCISCO WATERSHED LANDS. This connection would allow for parking on Crestview Drive and provide a more direct access to the San Francisco Watershed lands and Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. There is an existing gate at this location. 11. LANDS OF ROSA FLORES VIA CHESHAM TO PROPOSED DEVONSHIRE TRIAL SYSTEM. Currently a fire access road exists to access the open space easements existing in the Rosa Flores subdivision over large areas of Devonshire Canyon, providing another access into the lower end of the proposed system. 12. LANDS OF ROSA FLORES VIA WINDING WAY TO PROPOSED DEVONSHIRE TRIAL SYSTEM. Currently a fire access road exists to access the open space easements existing in the Rosa Flores subdivision over large areas of Devonshire Canyon, providing another access into the lower end of the proposed system. 13. EXISTING TRAIL FROM HIGHLANDS PARK TO WINDING WAY. Many paper pathway easements existing in the county area have the potential to connect with#10 and 11 above more directly. Access currently is on City streets. 14. ALAMEDA TO DUNDEE AND HIGHLAND PARK ACROSS BLACK MOUNTAIN PROPERTY. This is on the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District plan as a conceptual access into District lands. Some of this area is currently in open space easements or could be with future development. Would be easternmost access point into system. 15. LOWER CRESTVIEW DRIVE TO PULGAS RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE. This connection would allow for more direct access to the preserve and avoid having to travel on Edmonds road. Celebrating years of service to California 25local governments C A L I F 0 R N I A P , I - A 1978 - 2003 Silver Anniversary AUG - 6 2`T Au gust 4 2003 L. Craig Britton j General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Mr. Britton: Thank you for participating in the CALIFORNIA JPIA's Board of Directors meeting on July 23, 2003. It is important for our members to participate in the meetings so that they are aware of the Authority's business, the direction it takes, and the changes it undergoes. Thank you for your participation in the CALIFORNIA JPIA! Sincerely, Larry Van Nostran President CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY 8081 MOODY STREET, LA PALMA, CA 90623 TEL (562) 467-8700 FAX (562) 860-4992 Regional Open ,�, ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: C. Britton, General Manager From: T. Fischer, Land Protection Specialist ` Date: July 25, 2003 Subject: Lease and Management Agreement of the Peninsula Open Space Trust of the (former) Hunt Property adjacent Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve An Agreement was entered into on June 26, 2003 and management responsibility for the one-half interest in this 0.62-acre property passed to the District (See enclosed copy of the Agreement). Mr. & Mrs. Christiansen* of San Jose own the remaining one-half interest. I am not aware of any use and management concerns that were not addressed in the staff report to the Board. In accordance with the public notification policy, and since there were no public and/or adjoining owner comments which might require amendment to the use and management recommendations, the effective date of the agreement marks the final adoption of the preliminary use and management plan recommendation as tentatively approved by the Board of Directors at their meeting of June 25, 2003. DEDICATION/ACQUISITION CHART INFORMATION Ownership Status: Board Approval Preserve/Area County/A.P.N. Grantor Acres (Fee,Easement,Lease, Date/Res. No. Mgmt Agmt.) Bear Creek 544-35-009 POST 0.31 Lease and June 25, 2003 Redwoods (1/2 interest) (0.62) Management A reement Dedication Date/ Mgmt. Status: Status: Closing Date (Open,Closed, CMU, Type Purchase Price GIS Code or Other) (Intended Withheld) N/A Closed N/A N/A N/A Misc. Notes: Lease and Management Agreement cc: Board of Directors Administration Operations Accounting Planning * Communication with the Christiansen's should be through Tom Fischer. 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org CJFaEEs' Board of Directors:fete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko, Larry Hasse",Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager_L.Craig Britton Hi Paul— Attached is a copy of the article which we found posted on the bulletin board in the main parking lot at San Antonio this morning. I t seems to us well done, and reflective of the sentiments of almost everyone we've met in the Preserve. It's an unusually nice bit of `feedback which we could not scan into our computer report to you today, but hope you might want to send on to Mike Jurich and his crew, others in Midpen management, and perhaps Board members?! /Ro g d Rainey Alleman VTP i message from the giant oak tree You think the life of a tree is boring and monotonous. Humans think that mobility is irequired for activity, interaction, and exploration-all the things that make life interesting. Walking, running, hopping...it's all overrated. When you're still and stable, lif e's wonders have the time to come to you. Dawn and dusk bring families of deer grazing on the grass by my trunk. A newborn nuzzles me, curious about my nutritional content. The doe cleans her calf in my shade. The forest holds so much more life than moving eyes can see. It's not just the hiding moles, the slithering snakes, or the prowling bobcats. It's not just the forgotten beetles, newts, banana slugs, and potato bugs. It's the nomadic movement of a wildflower colony'. It's the countless songs and species of birds coming home to my arms. It's the breath of MotherNature as she paints the landscape anew' through the seasons. These miracles happen in the quiet moments surrounding the trickling river of human visitors walking past me everyday. They walk,,talk, jog, blind to all the secrets revealed over time, in the places they pass. I was lucky to have fallen to my birth here on this preserve, on this random plot of land inexplicably dedicated to us non- human species. When m roots cracked through the concrete P Y 9 floors of the handball court nearby, my fate seemed uncertain. Older trees have been cut down for lesser transgressions. But not here. The humans in uniforms knocked the wall down instead. Imagine that. They even widened the walking path around me to give me more room to grow. Now I know I will be allowed to grow old here, unharmed, even protected. Maybe you humans do manage to see a couple of things after all. i Regional Open Space ...........,............ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT To: Board of Directors From: L. Craig Britton, General Manager Date: August 13 2003 Re: FYI's I I 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone. 650.691-1200 Fax:650.691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org Regional Open *ce --------------- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: C. Britton, General Manager From: M. Williams, Real Property Representative Date: August 12, 2003 Subject: Mitchell Property Addition to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Escrow closed for the subject transaction on August 8, 2003 and title to and possession to the remaining one third (1/3) interest of this 35.64-acre parcel passed to the District. The District now owns the entire fee interest in the property. I am not aware of any use and management concerns that were not addressed in the staff report to the Board. In accordance with the public notification policy, and since there were no public and/or adjoining owner comments which might require amendment to the use and management recommendations, close of escrow marks the final adoption of the preliminary use and management plan recommendation as tentatively approved by the Board of Directors at their meeting of April 23, 2003. DEDICATION/ACQUISITION CHART INFORMATION Ownership Status: Board Approval Preserve/Area County/A.P.N. Grantor Acres (Fee,Easement,Lease, Date/Res. No. Mgmt Agmt.) Monte Bello 351-13-021 Mitchell 11.88 Undivided 1/3 April 23, 2003 351-13-020 Interest in Res. # 03-13 351-15-020 35.64-acres Santa Clara Dedication Date/ Mgmt. Status: Status: Closing Date (Open, Closed,CMU, Type Purchase Price GIS Code or Other) (Intended Withheld) August 8, 2003 Closed Withheld Cash $375,000.00 Misc. Notes: * Operations/Planning-Debris removal cc: Board of Directors Administration Accounting Operations Planning 330 Distel Circle a Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton Regional Open : Ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 7, 2003 Ms. Lida Tan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency g Y Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street, SFD-73 San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: Remediation of Site 25 (Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area) Dear Ms. Tan: On behalf of the District, I would like to express our thoughts and concerns regarding a recent letter, date stamped June 30, 2003, submitted by Ms. 011iges for NASA. In that letter NASA outlined its current, and proposed future use of the so-called "Stormwater Retention Pond" at Site 25, stressing its importance for stormwater management and the prevention of flooding at the base and airfield. The letter also stated NASA's intent to conduct engineering studies, after passage of five or more years, to determine the feasibility of allowing the retention basin to be restored to tidal wetlands. While the District is encouraged by NASA's willingness to undertake responsibility for the engineering studies necessary for tidal restoration, involving and consulting with the District throughout the process is still of the utmost importance. First, please be aware that although NASA expects to continue long-term use of its portion of Site 25 for stormwater management,the District's reasonable anticipated use of the Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area(SCSNSA), comprising approximately 54 acres of Site 25, is tidal restoration and a continuation of low-intensity public recreation. We have clearly articulated this intention for more than 20 years and documented it in a comprehensive Use and Management study entitled "Stevens Creek: A Plan for Opportunities". If you have not seen this study, we would be pleased to provide you with a copy. It is unfortunate that anticipated future uses for Site 25 currently result in conflicting cleanup levels with a lower standard for NASA's property and a more environmentally protective cleanup proposed for District land. We firmly believe that the Navy should not be so limited in their remediation obligation, and indeed should not even consider setting differing cleanup goals. Since the District's portion of Site 25 requires remediation to a level that will support the presence of piscivorous birds, and since there are no physical boundaries to prevent contaminant migration, there is no evidence to suggest even a potential for successful implementation of the two distinct levels of cleanup. The District is disappointed with the emphasis on implementing and justifying different cleanup levels rather than on raising the level of required cleanup for the entire stormwater basin. 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 * E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org - Web site: www.openspace.org ' Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton Ms. Tan 8/7/03 Page 2 Second, the current proposal suggests that once a Remedial Action Objective (RAO) is set and the remediation work completed, the site will be subjected to "institutional controls"to ensure that the remediation and final contamination levels achieved remain adequate for the appropriate future use of the site. While this may be an option available for use over NASA's property, it is not acceptable for District lands. The District has not entered into any agreement with the Navy, nor even indicated a willingness to consider an agreement that would restrict the District's intended tidal restoration of the public open space baylands. Institutional controls over public lands are not an adequate substitute for a more protective cleanup goal. Third, as a public agency landowner of a significant portion of Site 25, and in light of the earlier oversight of this ownership, we request participation in future Base Closure Team meetings when Site 25 is of topic. Given that the stormwater retention basin is both P physically and hydro-geologically connected, any discussions and decisions made regarding Site 25 will undoubtedly affect the interests and goals of the District. Although the District fully supports remediation efforts of contaminated sites in and around San Francisco Bay,we cannot support a remediation proposal that does not account for, and advance, our plan for the public lands of the SCSNSA. The SCSNSA will be profoundly affected b this cleanup and the District should be actively included in the decision making Y p Y g process. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our comments. Sinc rely, 1 \a L. Craig Brit on, General Manager LCB:amr:dms cc: MROSD Board of Directors Ms. Alana Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ms. Adriana Constantinescu, Regional Water Quality Control Board Ms. Andrea Espinoza, BRAC Coordinator, U.S. Navy Mr. Scott Gromko, Project Manager, Site 25, U.S. Navy Ms. Sandy 011iges, NASA Environmental Services Office • • .tee ° '�X3� �...•V/�' �Va 4, .D::.�w' ... O.wr'S!7 BSI YJ 1�_A M General Plan Newsletter #1 August 2003 ° 3 3 7 �" _ AltenOMt # s o S'll "r11 �l :..b..•vyY �..� - act i e ..... ,.. ._ � M1 Please join us in planning the future € of Ano Nuevo State Park, Ano Nuevo Ano Nuevo state Park State Reserve and Butano State Park. The Planning process will define how Our first workshop will be held: j we can best preserve and enjoy all three parks' unique values and resources. August 26 7-9:30 p.m. La Honda — Pescadero The California Department of Parks and School District Office Recreation has begun an 18-month 620 North Street planning process to develop a long-range Pescadero, CA general plan for Ano Nuevo State Park, Ano Nuevo State Reserve, and Butano The Workshop Agenda includes: State Park. General plans are broad policy • Orientation to the planning process documents that direct park management . Review of Ano Nuevo State Park, and future development. Three general Ano Nuevo State Reserve, and plans will be prepared simultaneously to: Butano State Park General Plan Scope • Identify significant natural, cultural, Public comment on the Parks j aesthetic, and recreational values and planning issues and concerns resources • Determine land use, park development, and visitor activities that are appropriate Due to the widespread public interest in the and compatible with the park and three parks and Big Basin Redwoods State surrounding areas Park , there will be many opportunities for • Establish guidelines for operations; public input in the planning process. At this protection, preservation, and first workshop, we need your help in interpretation of resources; and identifying major issues and concerns, development of facilities such as: what recreation opportunities are ■ Determine the significant environmental desired; what facilities are needed; what effects of land uses and visitor activities lands require special protection; and which and possible mitigations natural, historical, and cultural values should be enhanced and interpreted. 1 Newsletter#1 Three Parks Summary Ano Nuevo State Park, Ano Nuevo State Reserve, and Butano State Park are located in a relatively undeveloped portion of San Mateo County's coast, although over seven million people live within a one- hour drive of the three parks. The three parks, along with adjacent Big Basin iY Redwoods State Park, are contained by f several watersheds. n:T Cascade Ranch Horse Barn Cultural Resources 4 The parks are also rich in cultural resources including a variety of : '� ` '�► archaeological sites, historic structures and landscapes. Ohlone Indian villages were once occupied on this site. Today, the Marbled Murrelet region remains much as Don Sebastian Vizcaino saw it from his passing ship on Natural Resources January 3, 1603, when his chaplain gave A wide diversity of plant communities, the point its name, Punta Del Ano Nuevo. including old growth redwood forest, in the Mexican period, Afro Nuevo saved freshwater marsh, red alder riparian forest, as an outpost of Mission Santa Cruz and oak woodlands, knobcone pine forest, later became a rancho owned by Don Jose Castro, general and hero of the Mexican coastal plain, shrubs, grasslands and marine environs can all be found within the War. Later in the century, the land was three parks. Their perennial streams acquired by the Steele brothers who support trout and salmon. Elephant seals, operated a successful dairy business for s some 80 years. Many buildings remain ea lions, and other marine mammals from that era, including an historic barn populate the beaches and offshore islands, Ano Nuevo State Reserve is the site of the which is now the Reserve's Visitor Center. largest mainland breeding colony in the world for the northern elephant seal and is The Resource Inventory host to thousands of visitors during the In order to guide general plan decisions winter season. and proposals to preserve, interpret, manage, and develop Ano Nuevo's resources, we must first prepare an adequate inventory of the park's natural, cultural, historic, and recreational -r-w resources. Accordingly, State Park planning staff is developing a Resource Inventory for all three parks. Recognizing . that an inventory of such a large and diverse area is never finished, we envision Elephant Seals this inventory to be a dynamic "work-in- progress" i will be updated with new progress that i p 2 Newsletter#1 Three Parks Summary Ano Nuevo State Park, Ano Nuevo State Reserve and Butano State Park are T¢ located in a relatively undeveloped portion v, of San Mateo County's coast, although over seven million people live within a one- _ hour drive of the three parks. The three . parks, along with adjacent Big Basin `.f Redwoods State Park, are contained by ■-. ; . _ several watersheds. Cascade Ranch Norse Barn Cultural Resources _ The parks are also rich in cultural resources including a variety of � ' ` ► archaeological sites historic structures and landscapes. Ohlone Indian villages were once occupied on this site. Today, the Marbled Murrelet region remains much as Don Sebastian Vizcaino saw it from his passing ship on Natural Resources January 3, 1603, when his chaplain gave A wide diversity of plant communities, the point its name, Punta Del Ano Nuevo. including old growth redwood forest, In the Mexican period, Ano Nuevo served freshwater marsh, red alder riparian forest, as an outpost of Mission Santa Cruz and oak woodlands, knobcone pine forest, later became a rancho owned by Don Jose coastal plain, shrubs, grasslands and Castro, general and hero of the Mexican marine environs can all be found within the War. Later in the century, the land was three parks. Their perennial streams acquired by the Steele brothers who support trout and salmon. Elephant seals, operated a successful dairy business for sea lions, and other marine mammals some 80 years. Many buildings remain populate the beaches and offshore islands. from that era, including an historic barn Ano Nuevo State Reserve is the site of the which is now the Reserve's Visitor Center. largest mainland breeding colony in the world for the northern elephant seal and is The Resource Inventory host to thousands of visitors during the In order to guide general plan decisions winter season. and proposals to preserve, interpret, manage, and develop Ano Nuevo's resources, we must first prepare an adequate inventory of the park's natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources. Accordingly, State Park �. 0 planning staff is developing a Resource y �r Inventoryfor all three parks. Recognizing �' - that an inventory of such a large and �w diverse area is never finished, we envision Elephant Seals this inventory to be a dynamic "work-in- progress" that will be updated with new Z Newsletter#1 information during and beyond this general • planning process. See Web site for General SINCE 1664 Park Information To review the Ario Nuevo State Park, We want to hear from you! Aria Nuevo State Reserve, and Butano State Park information, access these If you are not currently on our mailing list, Web sites. and would like to receive the newsletter Ano Nuevo State Park at: and notice about future workshops, or if http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?pa � you wish to send written comments, please ge id-22264 contact us at either address below: Ano Nuevo State Reserve at: CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?pa ge id-523 Robin Ettinger, Northern Service Center Butano State Park at : P.O. Box 942896 http://www.parks.ca.gov/defauIt.as .a Sacramento, CA 94296-000] qe id=53 ATelephone: (916) 445-8905 Terry Lee, ASLA, Central Service Center 21 Lower Ragsdale Road Presenting comments at the Monterey, CA 93940 Workshop Telephone: (831) 657-6349 Workshop #1 will be dedicated to presenting the Scope of the General Plan The Public Input and reviewing the initial Resources Process Inventory. If you plan on speaking, please register at the workshop reception table when you arrive. To ensure that there is Workshop #1 (August 26, 2003): Orientation, enough time for all ideas to be expressed Review Scope of the we encourage organizations to select a General Plan, Initial single spokesperson. The Departments Resource Inventory and planning staff will also present information your Issues and on the progress of the general plan for Big Concerns Basin Redwoods State Park. State Parks Mission Statement - Workshop #2: Present and Discuss Alternatives The Mission of the California Department - Preliminary Planning ti for of Parks and Recreation is to provide o p Document Ready for the health inspiration, and education of the P Public Review people of California by helping to preserve - CEQA Public the state's extraordinary biological Review/Comment on diversity, protecting its most valued natural Preliminary Planning and cultural resources, and creating Document opportunities for high-quality outdoor - State Park Commission recreation. considers approving Preliminary Plan as Final Document 3 Newsletter#1 Ano Nuevo State Park, Ano Nuevo State Reserve, and Butano State Park General Plan Alt (D METER • 21 Lower Ragsdale Drive r H 2 e 1 a Monterey, CA 93940 Craig Britton, Gen. Mgr. A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 SINCE 11364 1 @01 e l 0 e e Please join us in planning the future Also the next day - lease join us in 1 P 9 Y P 1 of Ano Nuevo State Park, Ano State 2 planning the future of Big Basin Reserve, and Butano State Park . Our Redwoods State Park. Our second first workshop will be held : workshop will be held: August 26 7-9:30 p.m. August 27 6:30-9:00 p.m. La Honda — Pescadero Boulder Creek Elementary School School District Office 400 W. Lomond St. 620 North Street Boulder Creek, CA Pescadero, CA In this "Hands-On" Workshop you will The Workshop g A enda includes: work with others to help focus planning • 14 Orientation to planning goals and options for resolving major park issues process ■ Review of Ano Nuevo State Park, Ano Nuevo State Reserve, and Butano State Park General Plan Scope. i�u"n$S.:�u..�s..... ,x 3 -i u.��.. ,:..�=rxz., r........r:. rT.;c ,-...h::3:,�.s:� Luu:,..e .,. + e'Y`....,� „,ii�� �...,•;_:,...y'_ If you wish to send written comments, please contact us at this address: CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS, Terry Lee, ASLA, Landscape Architect Central Service Center, 21 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Monterey CA 93940 (831) 657-6349 For park information, please call (831) 338-8860. i X,,I e, July 25, 2003 Mr. L. Cra15 Britton, General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 94022 Dear i .air Because of your interest in the cleanup of Site 25 at the former Moffett Naval Air Station, I've written to the Navy and NASA on the issue and I'm enclosing copies for your perusal. The cleanu of this site is important to the vitality of the San Francisco Bay and its wildlife and I'll continue to do everything possible to see that there is a comprehensive cleanupso that future wetland restoration can take place. Sincerely, d An . Eshoo ember of Congress Enclosures i Z2an�� Pv6 .� P%�GGru �/ a�'ee OOI�i'G�.o�/ 205X5 July 7, 2003 The Honorable Hansford T. Johnson Assistant Secretary of the Navy Installations and Environment 1000 Navy Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20350 Dear Assistant Secretary Johnson, I understand that a decision regarding the cleanup of Site 25 at the former Moffett Field Naval Air Station in California is forthcoming shortly and I want to reiterate my appeal to you for a cleanup to maximum levels that would allow for future tide i restoration. I commend the Navy on its work thus far at cleaning up sites at Moffett. Field and other former Naval bases. I understand that the Navy would like to complete its work at Moffett Field including Site 25 as soon as possible, however, it's essent"a( that the project be properly completed, taking into account the concerns of all those involved from the Navy and NASA to the surrounding community, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and environmental organizations. Earlier this year, NASA Ames stated that it would study the ossibility of restoring the land to a tidal marsh, but NASA Ames has not yet begun its study, ming any decision on how best to a result, I urge you to work with NASA to begin the stud of the cleanup Site 2 5 premature., As s � p g Y g y feasibili and the costs of a more comprehensive cleanup in order to determine if the land has the ty p p potential to be vital wetland habitat again. I continue to hear from many constituents and organizations in the area about the importance of Site 25 for the revitalization of wetland habitat around the San Francisco Bay and the health of the Bay's waters. It's very important that the full potential of this land be studied so that a comprehensive look at the reasonably anticipated future use can be made. Thank you for your consideration of my request and I look forward to your timely response. Sincerel s � a G. Eshoo Member of Congress 07/16/03 15:37 FAX 415 956 6701 _ BARBARA BOXER Q002 Tringress of toe Unifeb §fates 33ashiligtuti, 139 ?.X'515 July 14,2003 Mr_ G. Scott Hubbard Center Director NASA AMES Research Center Mail Stop 200-1 Moffett Field, California 94035 Dear Mr.Hubbard, We are writing to strongly encourage NASA to act on its stated commitment to study the feasibility of wet land restoration of Site 25 at Moffett Field_ As you know,the Navy has been responsible for the cleanup of all sites at Moffett Field, which were designated as Supetfund sites by the EPA in 1997 as part of its Base Realignment and Closure prograrrx_ While the Navy has nearly completed its cleanup at Moffett,the decision on how to properly clean up Site 25 has not been finalized. In January,NASA Ames stated that it would study the feasibility of wetland restoration and consider a level of cleanup for Site 25 so that future wedand restoration.would"tie possible_ We urge you to lead-the NASA Ames environmental team to begin this study as soot as possible and work with community members so that we can understand the potential of Site 2,-,. The cleanup of Site 25 is important to the community,the health of the San Francisco Bay and efforts to protect endangered species. Thank you for your important leadership at NASA Ames and for your extraordinary work in the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy. We look forward to your response on this critical issue. Sincerely, Barbara Boxer Anna G. Eshoo United States Senator Member of Congress PRINTED ON RMYCLEO PAPER BAY AREA -, c August 10, 2003 OPEN SPACE Cor� Nc. � r '—�— Craig Britton STEERING COMMITTEE General Manager East BayTblu clip l UtiVDistrict Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District RommotY An Ex CRAIG Ad DE lin 330 Distel Circle . LIM 1A 1 Los Altos CA 94022 Solano Lend Trust TINA GATT AUG 1 Muir pHentage Laand Trust Merin ABn RTuB I Land Trust RE: Membership Support for FY 2003-4 G IiRy of alo Alto BoRY degga 1_84Trust Dear Craig: ROBERT BREwT -� Sonoma Land Trust F"NCEg BR GMAN N Merin Gounty Open pace Dlatrict This past spring the Bay Area Open Space-Council Executive CRRAIG BRITTON Midpeninsute Regeonai O'JppNen Space District Committee asked members of the Council to affirm their CCitylof 8renty oZodN RON BRc�$bd commitment to working together with their partners around the Save Mount HARRIET BURGESS region, and to consider increasing their level of annual financial American Land Conservancy tJ HA ey Cons NHAM support for the Council. The response has been quite gratifying. r-Valley Conservancy Countyo R nIVI. Many have also asked how in addition to dues they could provide RW�CCH BURNgg U.S.Bureau of Land Mar agemerd,Ukiah Field Office additional financial support. ty V�ATHER Gitygqof��Irc &:.k Calif.ia OAak OHEN on As the state's financial situation continues to worsen all of us are Rails-to Trails onsEervancy PA County pen Spaoce Authority grateful that the voters have been willing to support parks, open Santa Ciera (CENNETH onandCRAIGspace,water quality and farmland protection these past few ears. Livermore Area Recreation and Park District p q Y p 1> Y East Ba%oa�nol PaHc District By working together as the Open Space Council, we have through Tn-City and Ao M goo`aeva T , g Group the Bay Area Conservancy Program directly generated $125 ty C y pare ve tamm� NADINE ITCH OCK California State oa i conservancy million in funds for the region that would not have otherwise been Lang�teaH Nam "ty available. We have also been important partners with others BATH Ay G San Francesco t y Joint Venture L SA nty o, an�Uelare around the state in generating billions in additional funds for couSonoma CAN D R E A Ml1 CK� NF�r si Eervatlon and conservation and outdoor recreation purposes. enTpace 1Nl=t JEREMY MADSEN Greenbelt Alliance JANET MCBRIDE These and other accomplishments explain why there is strong San Francisco Bay Trail Projgct PAM MURK su California Native Plant Society pport for the Council. However, our past achievements pale in S OWE CHR Is P LL i Golden Gate National Recreation Area comparison to what we still must do--not just to protect critical �y oase S areas,but also to strengthen support for ongoing resource NANCY RICHARDSON Land Trust for Sante Clara County stewardship, public education and recreational access, and facility KERRY JO RICKETTS=FERRIS City of i Oakland AUDREY Open RUST maintenance. California's worsening fiscal crisis means we must Peninsula Open Space TrustPHILI redouble our efforts to develop new sources of funding. We must County SALES p g of Sonoma '.... BARBARA SALZMAN also work together to become more efficient and effective. Merin Audubon Society SUggAN ATT '.. California Stale MR Foundation FRED SMITH '... City of Brisbane MIKE STALLINGS CRy of Daly City BRIAN STEEN Sempervirens Fund PRisCILLA STUCKEY Butters Land Trust KAREN SWEET Alameda County Resource Conservation District TERRI THOMAS The Presidi0 Trust RICHARD THOMPSON Agricultural Trust of Contra Costs County BAY AREA OPEN SPACE COUNCIL HOLLY VAN HOUTEN Bay Area Ridge Trail Council John Woodbury,Director Trust iw Public Land 246 John Street,Oakland,CA,94611 a tel:510-654-6591 •fax:510-654-5673 GENERAL MANAGER Greater Vallejo Recreation District john@openspacecouncii.org•www.openspacecouncii.org I Enclosed with this letter is an invoice for this year's membership support. The Bay Area Open Space Council is working on many critical issues this year, and your support is important to our success. Also enclosed is a request for you to display your organization's materials-- reports, maps, photographs and brochures--during our annual conference on September I Oth at the Golden Gate Club in the San Francisco Presidio. The conference draws 250 land and water conservation leaders from around the region. This year we will have one whole wing of the Club devoted to displays, and will provide food, drink and plenty of time for participants to learn from each other. This is an additional way for you to help the Council while promoting the great work you do. Details about the conference, including on-line registration and last minute updates to the agenda, are available on our web page at www.o TenspacecounciLorg. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or suggestions about membership dues,the conference or the work in which we are engaged. I can be reached as indicated on the letterhead. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, John Woodbury Director • • • ' �4 ��►//• +�` ,�.11+�i '{ �1� .�1f w•�• ��i!rier.•-_C":•�,l�'�'►`� 'f��'�7f �Y� '• dill dill WPM IOU �1►X ♦t �� � If��•lV 'k. �+ IA���•J ,Z, � �, .•.tea I��'r(�'1�. I�► 1lj,MI r�illtfr �!"yII I, :1 �`�Iyr _ - � �,�r•r ,^a ..� s����� � i��c+�J�',� }'�.�K..7��'+1.:•y�y�%,)ri/,it1..�' � :: �' a:-`1�r� �sy.:�. ��'�"i�1►w�rl�'s��s�lr • I • • • • - • - • • • 09•- • 1 : •� • •••- • .