HomeMy Public PortalAbout20161116 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 16-29
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Costaño Elementary School
2695 Fordham St.
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Special Meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
7:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The Board President will invite public comment on items not the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily
be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the
Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a
speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this
section.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members,
the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent
Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
1. Approve November 1, 2016 and November 9, 2016 Minutes
2. Approve Claims Report
BOARD BUSINESS
The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the
Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may
comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates.
3. Acceptance of a Public Trail Easement between the City and County of San Francisco and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in
Exchange for a Quitclaim of Open Space Easement over City and County of San Francisco
lands located between University Avenue and the Preserve in the Cities of East Palo Alto and
Menlo Park (San Mateo County Assessor Parcel Numbers 063-590-060, 096-230-150, 093-
590-030, 093-590-050, and 093-590-060); an Amendment to the Comprehensive Use and
Meeting 16-29
Management Plan to include the Public Trail Easement; a Memorandum of Understanding
with the City of East Palo Alto on the management and operation of the trail; and
Certification of the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. (R-
16-146)
Staff Contact: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager and Gretchen Laustsen, Planner III
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to accept the Public Trail Easement from th
City and County of San Francisco, to quitclaim the Open Space Easement to the City and County
of San Francisco, and to execute all other documents needed for this transaction.
3. Approve an Amendment to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan as recommended,
and designate the property interests conveyed to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District as an addition to Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
4. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of
East Palo Alto on the management and operation of the trail.
5. Indicate the intention to withhold dedication of the Public Trail Easement at this time.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Neighborhood Public Meeting Survey – Summary of Results
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or
announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board
questions to staff for factual information; request staff to report back to the Board on a matter at a future
meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and
direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board.
A. Committee Reports
B. Staff Reports
C. Director Reports
ADJOURNMENT
*Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed
to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s
Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that
the foregoing agenda for the special meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for
review on November 10, 2016, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California,
94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
November 1, 2016
Board Meeting 16-27
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
November 1, 2016
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING –BOARD RETREAT
President Kishimoto called the special meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto,
Curt Riffle
Members Absent: Pete Siemens
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz,
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/
Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, Assistant General
Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Controller Mike Foster, and District
Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth
1. Board Retreat for the Purpose of Discussing the District’s and Board’s Role in the
Bay Area and within the Organization, including Diversity Outreach and Initiatives, Public
Outreach, and Environmental Stewardship.
President Kishimoto thanked staff and the members of the Retreat Ad Hoc Committee who
helped prepare for the retreat and reviewed the day’s agenda.
Director Hanko commented on the important role the District plays in the Bay Area and beyond
to encourage similar organizations to be formed where needed. The District can continue to be a
model for them.
Director Riffle spoke regarding the District’s ability to partner with other organizations and
being a resource for similar organizations but not an advocate for formation.
Director Harris spoke in favor of continuing to focus on implementing the District’s mission
statement within the District.
Meeting 16-27 Page 2
Director Hanko spoke in favor of partnering with cities within the District, especially related to
trail connections.
Director Riffle left at 10:14 a.m.
President Kishimoto spoke regarding the impact of open space on making urban space more
resilient.
Director Siemens arrived at 10:16 a.m.
Director Cyr spoke regarding the role of the District’s open space helping support the ecosystem
of the Bay Area.
General Manager Steve Abbors spoke regarding the District’s role in environmental protection,
which is the underlying why behind what is accomplished to fulfill the District’s mission
statement.
Director Siemens spoke in favor of the environmental protection role the District has taken on
since its formation.
Director Harris spoke regarding forming connections with the public concerning to
environmental protection using messages that are easily relatable.
Director Siemens agreed the District should focus on messages that resonate with the public to
help people better understand the need for environmental protection, including clean lands and
waterways, species restoration, etc.
Director Harris spoke in favor of the District doing scientific studies related to environmental
protection whose results may be utilized by other organizations.
Director Kishimoto suggested the District could consider holding workshops or a lecture series
regarding to areas where the District may lead.
Director Riffle returned at 10:42 a.m.
Mr. Abbors suggested the District could consider partnering with other organizations to sponsor
a lecture series or similar event.
Director Harris and Riffle spoke in favor of highlighting the District’s work related to wildlife
corridors.
Controller Mike Foster spoke regarding current staff resources being fully committed and unable
to take on new projects. The District may consider funding outside studies or other efforts that
would not require District staff’s time.
Director Hanko and Harris spoke in favor of and funds being spent within the District’s
boundaries.
Meeting 16-27 Page 3
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth summarized the topics
discussed by the Board for staff to start highlighting to the public, including integrated pest
management, work with Native Americans, wildlife corridors, diversity, and educate and engage
the public regarding the District’s efforts, agricultural support, fisheries restoration, and proposed
methods to highlight the topics, including sponsoring workshops and funding outside efforts.
The Board recessed at 11:26 a.m. and reconvened at 11:32 a.m. with all members present.
Director Cyr spoke regarding the role of the Board and how it may have changed in the last four
years.
Director Riffle spoke in favor of the Board focusing on what the District accomplishes instead of
the how things are accomplished.
Director Hanko spoke in favor of the District serving as a caretaker agency for the land it owns.
Director Harris spoke in favor of the Board serving as spokespeople for the District,
understanding their legal and ethical responsibilities, and interacting directly with other elected
officials and decision makers.
Director Riffle suggested members of the Board should consider reaching out beyond other
elected officials, including to members of the business community, healthcare community, etc.
Mr. Abbors suggested the Board may consider creation of a vision statement for the District
which could address the why behind the what the District does as defined by the mission
statement.
Director Hassett expressed concern related to the Board not always staying “out of the weeds” of
decision making.
President Kishimoto commented the details “in the weeds” are important because these details
may lead to policy changes in the future.
Director Hassett commented on the work and analysis completed by the Board Committees and
the tendency of the Board to sometimes reanalyze the project following Committee approval and
recommendation.
Director Siemens spoke in favor of the Board setting policy and confirming the policy is being
implemented properly through its Board appointees.
Director Riffle spoke in favor of the Board setting a vision for the District and stewarding the
mission, connecting to the public, and Board members fully understanding the issues before
them.
President Kishimoto suggested polling the public approximately every three years to gauge
public interest, creation of a citizens’ advisory committee, and Board members doing more
training to become better experts on topics before the District.
Meeting 16-27 Page 4
Director Harris spoke in favor of more training for Board members and potentially raising the
Board’s training budget to allow Board members to attend more training opportunities.
Ms. Woodworth summarized the discussion regarding the role of the Board and how staff can
help facilitate the role.
Director Riffle suggest the Board President may want to help shape the role of the Board each
year after they are selected. The Board President may select areas of focus for the Board for the
coming year.
Director Riffle and President Kishimoto spoke in favor of increased training related to issues
before the Board and trainings to help improve as Board members.
President Kishimoto inquired regarding interest in drafting a vision statement for the Board and
suggested Board members submit ideas related to a draft vision statement to the District Clerk by
November 9th.
The meeting recessed at 12:35 p.m. and reconvened at 1:02 p.m. with all member present.
Mr. Abbors introduced the Public Affairs Strategic Plan currently being developed.
Director Riffle reviewed the Board goals and Public Affairs initiatives and objectives included in
the strategic plan.
Director Siemens suggested the Public Affairs initiatives should support the why of the District.
President Kishimoto requested clarification related to the regional conservation vision.
Director Hanko left at 1:12 p.m.
Director Kishimoto suggested including connecting with new partners, such as the business and
healthcare community, and Native American groups, as an additional objective for Initiative 2.
Director Kishimoto suggested increasing staff engagement with the public including providing
opportunities for engagement. Additionally, the Board may have an increased role in connecting
with people.
Director Cyr spoke in favor of the biweekly updates stating they help keep the Board members
informed.
Director Riffle requested additional information related to communication among the District’s
various field and administrative offices.
Mr. Abbors commented on increased telecommunication capabilities that facilitate
communication among the offices.
Director Harris requested additional information regarding the proposed visitor use survey.
Meeting 16-27 Page 5
Public Affairs Manager Shelly Lewis explained the polling would include preserve visitors and
residents of the District and could be done at a regular frequency.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz summarized the work of the Diversity Outreach ad hoc
committee and the work completed by the committee to date. Ms. Ruiz requested feedback
regarding the proposed diversity outreach values statement, goals, and objectives.
Director Cyr suggested reordering the values statement to state the District’s values first.
Director Hassett spoke regarding a potential citizens’ advisory committee stating if it is formed it
should have a defined purpose and method of functioning and defined milestones to be reached.
ADJOURNMENT
President Kishimoto adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 2:16 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
November 9, 2016
Board Meeting 16-28
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
November 9, 2016
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
President Kishimoto called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: Cecily Harris and Pete Siemens
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz,
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/
Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, General Counsel Sheryl
Schaffner, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer
Woodworth, Nicole Gonzales, Finance & Budget Analyst II, Planning
Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Planner I Alicia Halpern,
Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Land and Facilities Manager
Brian Malone, Visitor Services Manager Michael Newburn, Engineering
and Construction Manager Jay Lin, Natural Resources Manager Kirk
Lenington, Information Systems and Technology Manager Garrett
Dunwoody, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator Coty Sifuentes-
Winter
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
• Introduction of Staff
o Matt Brunnings, Capital Project Manager III
o Janine Ward, Procurement and Contract Specialist
Meeting 16-28 Page 2
Director Siemens arrived at 7:08 p.m.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Harris absent.)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:09 p.m.
No speakers.
Public comment closed at 7:09 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the Consent
Calendar.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Harris absent.)
1. Approve October 26, 2016 Minutes
2. Approve Claims Report
3. Use and Management Plan Amendment for Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
and Award of Contract to West Coast Netting Construction Services to install the Prospect
Road Parking Area Safety Structure for a Base Amount Not-to-Exceed $46,500 and a
Separate 15% Contingency (R-16-132)
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Approve a Use and Management Amendment to allow for the construction of a net
canopy safety structure at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve.
2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with West Coast Netting
Construction Services of Kingman, Arizona for an amount not to exceed $46,500.
3. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency in the amount of $6,975 to be
reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing a total contract amount not-to-exceed
$53,475.
4. Resolution and Approval of Caltrans Cooperative Agreement for Highway 17
Wildlife Passage and Bay Area Ridge Trail Crossing Project (R-16-147)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the Caltrans Cooperative
Agreement and authorizing the General Manager to enter into the Agreement for a not-to-exceed
amount of $165,000 to fund Caltrans’ oversight of the development of a Project Initiation
Document for the Highway 17 Wildlife Passage and Bay Area Ridge Trail Crossing Project.
BOARD BUSINESS
Meeting 16-28 Page 3
5. Proposed Expansion of Dogs On-Leash Access on All Trails at El Sereno Open
Space Preserve (R-16-148)
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz spoke regarding previous meetings and workshops related
to opening all current trails in the El Sereno Open Space Preserve to on-leash dogs. The project
was discussed as part of the District’s Vision Plan process and included as a Measure AA
project.
Planner I Alicia Halpern provided an overview of the El Sereno Open Space Preserve, current
limited and full dog access in the District’s preserves, and the regulations included in the
District’s ordinance related to dogs. Ms. Halpern described the dog access site evaluation
criteria, which guide when areas are opened to dog access, and applied these criteria to the trail
system within the El Sereno trail system. All of the trails currently in El Sereno are proposed to
be opened for on-leash dog access, except for San Jose Water Company property. At a recent
neighborhood meeting, neighbors expressed concern regarding limited parking along Sheldon
Rd. Since then, District staff has met with these neighbors and will continue to look for
solutions. District staff has proposed additional signage to educate visitors regarding compliance
with District regulations. Finally, Ms. Halpern discussed the next steps of the process, including
environmental review and continuing negotiations with the San Jose Water Company.
Director Hassett requested additional information regarding the portion of land owned by the San
Jose Water Company.
Real Property Manager Mike Williams reported staff is currently in discussions with San Jose
Water Company regarding this property.
President Kishimoto reported she has also spoken with the Chief Operating Officer of the San
Jose Water Company about the District acquiring access to this portion of land.
Public comment opened at 7:37 p.m.
Maria Ristow spoke in favor of opening of the El Sereno trail system to dogs.
Public comment closed at 7:38 p.m.
Director Riffle spoke in favor of opening of the El Sereno trail system to dogs.
Director Siemens spoke in favor of the process being used by staff to consider opening the El
Sereno trail system to dogs.
President Kishimoto suggested staff consider long term permitting options for dog walkers to
help encourage dog walkers to clean up dog waste.
Director Hassett commented on the “Dog Access Site Evaluation Criteria” stating they should
allow for partial openings of preserves to dog access rather than an all or nothing approach.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to:
Meeting 16-28 Page 4
1. Approve the proposed project description for the El Sereno Dog Access Project, as set
out in this report, to proceed with the required environmental review in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. Approve the above project description for a future Use and Management Plan
Amendment for El Sereno Open Space Preserve, excluding trail segment over San Jose
Water Company Property, pending formalized access rights.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Harris absent.)
6. Year-End Review of the Fiscal Year 2015-16 District Budget and Action Plan (R-16-
118)
Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak provided the staff report
describing significant FY2014-15 Action Plan accomplishments. Mr. Jaskulak summarized the
FY2014-15 revenues and budget performance, including expenditures and savings, and compared
FY2014-15 to past District budget performances. Finally, Mr. Jaskulak described FY2016-17
budget expenditure trending through the first quarter.
Public comment opened at 8:11 p.m.
No speakers.
Public comment closed at 8:11 p.m.
7. Annual Integrated Pest Management Report, 2015 (R-16-120)
Integrated Pest Management Coordinator Coty Sifuentes-Winter presented the first year of pest
management activities for the first complete year of the Integrated Pest Management Program
(IPM). IPM is defined by the adaptive management cycle: assessing the problem, designing a
solution, implementing the treatment, monitoring and evaluating the progress, and adjusting our
treatment. The District uses cloud-based Calflora to assess pest problems and develop an annual
work plan, which is then implemented by District staff, contractors, and tenants. Mr. Sifuentes-
Winter summarized pest problems currently identified on District lands and several pest control
treatments utilized by the District in 2015, including herbicide use and public notifications
associated with herbicide application. Finally, Mr. Sifuentes-Winter described updates to the best
management practices included in the IPM guidance manual and new District forms developed
to assist the IPM program.
President Kishimoto commented on potentially using drone technology to monitor pests on
District lands.
President Kishimoto requested additional information related to prevention.
Mr. Sifuentes-Winter explained prevention practices are included as part of the implementation
plan for year three.
Public comment opened at 8:45 p.m.
No speakers.
Meeting 16-28 Page 5
Public comment closed at 8:45 p.m.
No Board action required.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Summary of the 10/17/16 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Cyr reported the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee meeting yesterday
to receive a legislative briefing and a report on applicants for the ombudsperson position.
B. Staff Reports
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz provided an update on the parking lot design for the Alma
College parking lot.
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse reported on the District’s recent graduates from
the Santa Clara County Leadership Academy and provided an update on the public meetings
related to Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Permanente Creek flood prevention project at
Rancho San Antonio.
Mr. Jaskulak provided an update on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee and the
District’s efforts to convert the year-end report into a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Mr. Williams reported on the upcoming Vida Verde event in East Palo Alto.
General Counsel provided an update on release of selenium by the East Materials Storage Area
at Lehigh Quarry and enforcement by the State Water Resources Control Board.
General Manager Steve Abbors reported his attendance at Monday’s meeting of the San Mateo
County Farm Bureau.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Director Hassett commented on signage prohibiting drone use near national parks in Utah.
Director Cyr commented on work currently being done at Mt. Umunhum and suggested the
District may consider pursuing press coverage for the work.
President Kishimoto reported she will be attending the Bay Area Confluence tomorrow related to
regional water resilience.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting 16-28 Page 6
President Kishimoto adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 9:27 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
page 1 of 2
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 16-28
DATE 11-16-2016
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
73712 10532 - US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Technical Assistance for SFGS Population Monitoring at Mindego - RR 11/09/2016 22,799.98
73698 10925 - PAPE` MACHINERY Dozer rental 8/21 - 10/15/16 - Purisima Creek 11/09/2016 9,787.50
73694 10058 - LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE HR Consulting 11/09/2016 7,085.00
73681 11648 - ARIS HELICOPTERS Aerial Transport of Mt Um Trail Bridges (2nd mobilization 50% payment)11/09/2016 5,000.00
73689 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC CM-Excavator Rental 11/09/2016 3,918.55
73715 *11118 - WEX BANK Fuel for District vehicles 11/09/2016 3,353.21
73697 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 3 New Radios 11/09/2016 2,870.46
73690 10667 - HEYDAY BOOKS Sponsorship of HeyDay Harvest Dinner 11/09/2016 2,500.00
73685 10022 - CONCERN Quarterly Employee Assistance Fees 10/1/2016-12/31/2016 11/09/2016 2,467.50
73680 11048 - ARC Printing of Draft EIR - BCR Preserve Plan 11/09/2016 2,438.37
73710 11055 - SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY Background Check - 2 Ranger Candidates 11/09/2016 2,295.29
73687 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Chainsaw sharpening tools, Service for 6 pieces of equipment 11/09/2016 2,131.27
73711 *10786 - U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE Sharp copiers lease payment 11/09/2016 1,877.04
73679 *10128 - AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION Repeater Site Lease 11/09/2016 1,804.00
73695 10791 - LSA ASSOCIATES INC Red Barn Historical Resource Evaluation - LHC 11/09/2016 1,590.00
73705 *10580 - SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS AO Printing Costs 11/09/2016 1,531.81
73686 11318 - CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Mindego Gateway Planting & Landscape Maintenance 2016-17 11/09/2016 1,434.50
73704 10697 - SANDIS Mt Um Topo Survey and Staircase Layout 11/09/2016 1,200.00
73708 11651 - STRATEGIC PRODUCTS & SERVICES, LLC Consultant: TIme and Materials - Microsoft Sharepoint 11/09/2016 1,110.00
73714 11733 - VILLAGE HARVEST CORPORATION Volunteer Stewardship Partnerhip - Fruit Tree Harvests 11/09/2016 975.00
73716 11176 - ZORO TOOLS Chain Hoist - equipment purchase 11/09/2016 957.82
73696 11449 - MARK, JANE American Planning Association CA Chapter Conference 2016 11/09/2016 825.89
73700 10505 - PENNINGTON, BRAD Tuition Reimbursement - Ethical Decision Making 11/09/2016 800.00
73706 10102 - SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Mt Um Conservation Easement Legal Consulting 11/09/2016 582.00
73683 11186 - CALIFORNIA DEPT FISH AND WILDLIFE-NAPA OFFICE Extension of Permit Agreement 1600-2015-0079-R3 11/09/2016 562.00
73707 11559 - SIFUENTES-WINTER, JONATHAN Data Acquisition class tuition reimbursement 11/09/2016 395.00
73702 *10093 - RENE HARDOY 10/16 Gardening Services 11/09/2016 325.00
73684 10613 - COASTAL TRAIL RUNS Refund of Deposit for Event on District Preserve 11/09/2016 300.00
73678 11575 - ADLAO, DAMON Reimbursement for Expenses - Mt Um related 11/09/2016 248.25
73703 11503 - RYAN, ELISH American Planning Association CA Chapter Conference 2016 11/09/2016 238.00
73699 10082 - PATSONS MEDIA GROUP Printing of Business Cards: Lau, Ward, Brunnings, Sterzl, Riffle, Shank 11/09/2016 232.73
73693 11326 - LEXISNEXIS Online Subscription Service Oct 2016 11/09/2016 188.84
73692 11491 - LAU, CARMEN Mileage Reimbursement, parking reimbursements 11/09/2016 174.99
73691 10895 - INFANTE, LISA Land Trust Alliance Conference travel reimbursement 11/09/2016 147.00
73701 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC MB- Skid Road bridge repair 11/09/2016 108.00
73713 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services - HR 11/09/2016 94.00
73709 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Uniform ball caps 11/09/2016 65.40
73682 10340 - BARRESI, CHRIS MMA membership 75% reimbursement 11/09/2016 56.25
73688 11571 - HALPERN, ALICIA Adobe Illustrator Training Class Travel Reimbursement 11/09/2016 43.80
GRAND TOTAL 84,514.45$
page 2 of 2
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 16-28
DATE 11-16-2016
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap TC = Tunitas Creek
CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge PC = Purisima Creek SA(U) = Sierra Azul (Mt Um) WH = Windy Hill
ECM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio SR= Skyline Ridge AO2, 3, 4 = Administrative Office lease space
ES = El Sereno MR = Miramontes Ridge RV = Ravenswood SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature FFO = Foothills Field Office
FH = Foothills MB = Monte Bello RR = Russian Ridge TH = Teague Hill SFO = Skyline Field Office
FO = Fremont Older PIC= Picchetti Ranch SJH = St Joseph's Hill TW = Thornewood SAO = South Area Outpost
RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill PR = Pulgas Ridge DHF = Dear Hollow Farm OSP = Open Space Preserve P## or M## = Patrol or Maintenance Vehicle
R-16-146
Meeting 16-29
November 16, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Acceptance of a Public Trail Easement between the City and County of San Francisco and
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in Exchange
for a Quitclaim of Open Space Easement over City and County of San Francisco lands located
between University Avenue and the Preserve in the Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park (San
Mateo County Assessor Parcel Numbers 063-590-060, 096-230-150, 093-590-030, 093-590-050,
and 093-590-060); an Amendment to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan to include
the Public Trail Easement; a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of East Palo Alto on
the management and operation of the trail; and Certification of the Initial Study, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to accept the Public Trail Easement from
the City and County of San Francisco, to quitclaim the Open Space Easement to the City and
County of San Francisco, and to execute all other documents needed for this transaction.
3. Approve an Amendment to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan as recommended,
and designate the property interests conveyed to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District as an addition to Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
4. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City
of East Palo Alto on the management and operation of the trail.
5. Indicate the intention to withhold dedication of the Public Trail Easement at this time.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is proposing to accept a public trail
easement from the City and County of San Francisco (City) to complete a 0.6-mile gap in the
San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) from University Avenue in the cities of East Palo Alto and
Menlo Park to the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (Preserve) in Menlo Park and Cooley
Landing Park in East Palo Alto. In exchange for the trail easement, the District will quitclaim an
R-16-146 Page 2
open space easement to the City over the trail easement study area. The following report
includes an amendment to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan to add the public trail
easement to the Preserve, environmental review of the public easement transfers and future
proposed trail project, terms and conditions, and financial considerations.
MEASURE AA
The proposed public trail easement supports the goals of Measure AA Portfolio # 2, Regional:
Bayfront Habitat Protection and Public Access Partnerships with a portfolio allocation of
$5,052,000. This project will provide community and regional public access to the San
Francisco Bay Trail and is included in the Board-approved MAA 5-year Project List.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 2005, a Ravenswood Bay Trail Feasibility Study was completed by the City of Menlo Park in
partnership with the City of East Palo Alto, the San Francisco Bay Trail Committee, National
Fish & Wildlife Service - Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, the City, the District, and
other agencies. This study identified a preferred route between University Avenue and the
Preserve to close a critical trail gap in the Bay Trail.
In 2006, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) on behalf of the City
approached the District to acquire a subsurface water pipeline tunnel easement under the
northeast corner of the Preserve. An easement was needed for the Hetch Hetchy regional water
distribution system to facilitate a new Transbay pipeline that now extends beneath the San
Francisco Bay from Menlo Park to Fremont. In July 2010, the Board approved a negotiated
exchange agreement with the SFPUC where the District granted the City a pipeline tunnel
easement under the Preserve (R-10-65). In exchange, the City granted the District a 50-foot
wide open space easement over City property covering the area of the preferred Bay Trail route
that was identified in the 2005 Bay Trail feasibility study.
The exchange agreement allows the District to study and identify a mutually-acceptable,
conceptual trail alignment and design, at which point the District would quitclaim the open space
easement back to the City, and in return the City would grant the District a narrower and defined
20-foot wide public trail easement. In the summer of 2015, the SFPUC Project Review
Committee agreed to the preferred alignment of the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection.
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project
The proposed transfer of the public trail easement will allow the District to design and construct
the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection and complete a critical Bay Trail gap between University
Avenue and the Preserve/Cooley Landing. The Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection is 0.6-miles
long, and runs along a narrow corridor of the SFPUC property in between the Dumbarton rail
line to the north and the University Village neighborhood to the south. Completing this trail
segment will link together 80 miles of continuous Bay Trail, connecting to Menlo Park to the
north, Santa Clara to the south, and across the Dumbarton Bridge to the East Bay. The Bay Trail
is a planned 500-mile, walking and cycling path around the entire San Francisco Bay through all
nine Bay Area counties and 47 cities (see Attachment 5: Regional Map).
R-16-146 Page 3
The project site spans the city limits of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, and the surrounding areas
contain a diverse array of existing land uses and infrastructure, including the University Village
neighborhood located to the south, the SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot and Don Edwards
National Wildlife Refuge to the north, existing wetlands to the northeast, and the currently
inactive Dumbarton rail line (SamTrans) to the north. Much of the area is owned by public
agencies.
The conceptual trail design calls for the trail to run along the north side of the SFPUC service
road, to provide a privacy buffer to the adjacent University Village neighborhood, with a bridge
over a wetland pond and a raised boardwalk over wetlands at the easterly connection of the
Preserve (see Attachment 7: Conceptual Trail Alignment). The multi-use trail will be 8 to 14
feet wide (including shoulders), within a 20-foot wide trail easement corridor.
The Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection will provide easily accessible recreational opportunities
for the East Palo Alto and Menlo Park communities, including outdoor enthusiasts, hikers,
joggers, and bicyclists. It offers a setting for wildlife viewing and environmental education, and
increases public respect and appreciation for the Bay. It also has important transportation
benefits, providing a bicycle commute alternative for Bay Area residents.
The use and basic terms of the public trail easement are as follows:
• Use of the trail will include hiking, jogging, bicycling, and nature observation, and it will
be accessible to persons with mobility impairments or other disabilities.
• The District will be responsible for patrol, enforcement, trail construction, maintenance,
and repair.
• The easement provides for extended trail hours to facilitate commuter use.
• The trail easement shall be 20 feet in width with actual trail width approximately 10 feet
wide.
• The District will notify SFPUC of scheduled or emergency repairs to the trail, and report
emergency medical responses and enforcement incidents to the SFPUC.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with City of East Palo Alto
In the spirit of the Cooley Landing Partnership Agreement with the City of East Palo Alto, the
District and East Palo Alto are interested in entering into a MOU on the operation of the
Ravenswood Bay Trail to provide improved community and public access to the San Francisco
Bay Trail, the Preserve, Cooley Landing, and the bay lands. District staff has met with East Palo
Alto’s Assistant City Manager and Police Chief to discuss future emergency response related to
the proposed public trail easement. District staff has also helped facilitate East Palo Alto police
access to the SFPUC service road property for after hours and emergency response.
If approved by the Board, the District would enter into a Ravenswood Bay Trail MOU with East
Palo Alto under the General Manager’s authority to address the following:
1. Patrol and Emergency Response – the District will be responsible for trail patrol and
maintenance. The East Palo Alto Police Department will respond to emergency or law
enforcement incidents.
2. Site Security – East Palo Alto and District will coordinate on fencing and security
between the University Village neighborhood and City property.
R-16-146 Page 4
3. Future Community Trail Access – East Palo Alto and the District will work to provide
improved community access to the Bay Trail, Preserve, and Cooley Landing.
4. Assignment or Transfer of the Trail – In the unlikely event the District decides to assign
or transfer management or ownership of the trail, the District would give East Palo Alto
the first opportunity to manage or own it, provided East Palo Alto can demonstrate staff
and resource capacity to operate and maintain the trail.
At the time the MOU is entered into with East Palo Alto, this agreement will be reported to the
Board of Directors.
USE AND MANAGEMENT
Planning Considerations
The proposed public trail easement is located in the City of East Palo Alto, zoned ROS
(Ravenswood Open Space), and within the planning area for the 2012 Ravenswood / 4 Corners
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan. As part of the plan, East Palo Alto
approved a potential future multi-modal loop road to the north of University Village that would
connect the Ravenswood Business District with University Avenue and include a pedestrian and
bicycle trail. The alignment of the proposed loop road follows a portion of the same route being
considered for the public trail easement, and the trail alignment and design is compatible with the
loop road. The District worked with East Palo Alto to provide a privacy buffer as part of the trail
alignment for the adjacent University Village neighborhood.
In addition, the trail alignment and design are consistent with the SFPUC’s use and management
of their Ravenswood Valve Lot and pipeline facilities to prevent conflicts with surrounding land
uses and avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
The Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for the Preserve, adopted on April 5, 1990 (see
R-90-53), was amended on July 14, 2010 to reflect the District’s conveyance of the subsurface
tunnel easement to the City for the new Transbay pipeline and the open space easement that was
received in exchange as an addition to the Preserve. This final phase of the easement exchange
to add the public trail easement to the Preserve and quitclaim the open space easement to the
City also requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan. The trail
easement would not be open to the public until design and construction are complete.
The amendment of the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve will take effect at the close of escrow and will remain effective until further amended.
Comprehensive Use and Management Plan (Next Steps)
The Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for the public trail easement represents a status
quo approach to management (R-11-62). The easement area will continue to be owned,
operated, and managed by the City until the trail is built and opened to the public, when the
District will assume patrol and management of the trail as an addition to the Preserve. The
Comprehensive Use and Management Plan amendment includes the following elements:
Public Access:
The easement area will remain closed to public use until a trail is built
and made open to the public.
R-16-146 Page 5
Signs and Site
Security:
No District signs will be installed at this time. A sign plan will be
included with final trail design and engineering plans which will be
considered by the Board at a future date.
Easement
Monitoring:
Regular inspection of the trail easement area will be carried out by the
District to ensure compliance.
Site Safety
Inspection:
A preliminary site safety inspection has been conducted and there are
no known safety hazards within the trail easement area.
Name: Designate the trail easement as an addition to Ravenswood Open
Space Preserve.
Dedication: Indicate the Board’s intention to withhold dedication of the public trail
easement for public open space purposes until constructed and opened
to the public as part of the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Subsequent
Planning:
Conduct subsequent planning to design the future Bay Trail
connection.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared to evaluate and
address the potential environmental impacts of implementing the Project, which includes:
1. Transfer of a public trail easement from the SFPUC property to the District.
2. District’s adoption of a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the trail easement.
3. Potential future transfer of the public trail easement from the District to another public
agency.
4. Design, permitting, and construction of the new Bay Trail segment.
5. Operation of the new Bay Trail segment with extended trail use hours for trail commuters.
6. Maintenance of the new Bay Trail segment.
7. Resurfacing of approximately 3,600 linear feet (0.7 miles) of the existing Bay Trail segment
at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
The IS/MND found that with the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the
proposed project and described in the air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards
and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality sections, the proposed project would
not result in significant adverse environmental impacts (See Attachment 1). The attached
Resolution makes specific findings regarding these impacts and mitigation measures (See
Attachment 2).
Notification to the Public and Local Agencies
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the
County of San Mateo’s Clerk-Recorder on September 30, 2016 for public posting stating that the
public review period would start on September 30, 2016 and end on November 1, 2016 (a 30-day
period, 30 days is required). On September 30, 2016 the Notice was posted at the District’s
Administrative Office, on the District’s website (www.openspace.org), and mailed to more than
R-16-146 Page 6
600 persons. Those notified included residents within approximately 300 feet of the project site,
residents of the adjacent University Village neighborhood, other interested parties previously
requesting notice, and responsible agencies. During the comment period, the Notice and
IS/MND were made available for public review at the District’s Administrative Office, the East
Palo Alto Library, the Menlo Park City Library, and on the District’s website.
Comments Received
As of November 1, 2016, the District received one comment letter (from the City of East Palo
Alto) concerning the IS/MND, which is attached to this staff report. The response to comments
addresses the issues raised by East Palo Alto, including ensuring consistency with East Palo
Alto’s recently updated General Plan and Ravenswood 4 / Corners TOD Specific Plan,
continuing community outreach through the design and construction phases, and allowing East
Palo Alto the opportunity to hold the trail easement if it is ever transferred by the District (see
Attachment 3: Comment Letter and Response). The comments did not raise any significant new
environmental impacts and did not result in any changes to the IS/MND’s conclusions.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now that the City has agreed to the Ravenswood Bay Trail alignment, the City will grant the
District a 20-foot wide public trail easement across City property, thereby connecting the
existing Bay Trail on the Preserve to the east with the recently-completed section of the Bay
Trail at University Avenue to the west. In turn, the District will quitclaim and convey back to
the City a 50-foot wide open space easement that was previously granted in 2010. To facilitate
this final phase of the exchange with the City, the 2010 exchange agreement will be amended
under the General Manager’s authority to include escrow instructions specific to the recording of
the public trail easement to the District and the quitclaim of open space easement to City.
If the public trail is built outside the 20-foot easement corridor due to site conditions, the public
trail easement provides for the City and District to amend the easement to reflect the as-built
legal description of the public trail. The easement further provides that the General Managers of
the SFPUC and District are authorized to execute and record such an amendment if needed.
Escrow costs to complete the exchange will be shared equally, and each party will obtain title
insurance at its own election and cost.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The public trail easement is in exchange for the pipeline easement granted to City in 2010, and
no funds will change hands between the parties. The only costs incurred by the District are for
conceptual trail design and CEQA consultants, survey work, and title and escrow services,
estimated to be approximately $164,048.
MAA 02-002 FY 2016/17 Bay Trail Budget $209,600
Spent to Date on Public Trail Easement (as of 11/2/16): $37,411
Additional expenditures expected to complete the Public
Trail Easement:
$29,200
FY 2016/17 Budget Remaining (Proposed)*: $142,989
*Funds encumbered for Bay Trail Design Development
R-16-146 Page 7
The following table is provided to outline the Measure AA Portfolio fiscal implications related to
the Ravenswood Bay Trail Project:
MAA 02 Portfolio Allocation: $ 5,052,000
Life-to- Date Spent: $134,848
Additional expenditures expected to complete
Public Trail Easement:
$ 29,200
Balance Remaining (Proposed): $4,887,952
Funding
The total Ravenswood Bay Trail project cost is estimated at $2.4 million. Conceptual trail
planning was funded in part by a grant of $40,000 from the Bay Trail Project through the
Association of Bay Area Governments. Trail design and permitting will utilize San Mateo
County’s Measure A ($1 million) and Santa Clara County grant ($400,000) funds. Trail
construction will use grant funds and voter-approved Measure AA funds.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The District’s Real Property Committee, a standing committee of the Board of Directors, held a
public meeting at the College Track facilities on Bay Road in East Palo Alto on February 16,
2016 to familiarize the community with the Ravenswood Bay Trail project and the proposed
public trail easement, and to receive public input. Approximately 12 members of the community
and public attended this meeting and were supportive of the project. The three Committee
members unanimously supported the public trail easement and Ravenswood Bay Trail project.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Residents of the adjoining University
Village neighborhood of East Palo Alto and interested parties have been mailed a copy of the
agenda for this public meeting and an informational flyer in English and Spanish. In addition,
the agenda and this report have been mailed to the SFPUC, San Francisco Bay Trail Project, and
supporting public agency stakeholders, including the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park,
San Mateo County Parks Department, Santa Clara County, Caltrans, Sam Trans, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the attached public trail easement, quitclaim of open
space easement, and Board Resolution will be transmitted to the City for consideration and
approval by its Public Utilities Commission, Mayor’s Office, and Board of Supervisors. Once
this transaction has been approved by the City, the public trail easement and quitclaim deed of
open space easement will be recorded in San Mateo County.
Design and engineering of the project are underway (Attachment 7: Conceptual Trail Alignment
and Cross Sections). The anticipated project schedule is as follows:
Design and Engineering Summer 2017
Permitting Summer 2018
R-16-146 Page 8
Construction Summer/Fall 2018
Attachments:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (including Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program) (can be downloaded at link above)
2. Resolution Approving the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)
3. Comment Letter and Response
4. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Public Trail Easement, Authorizing Officer or General
Manager to Execute Quitclaim of Open Space Easement, Authorizing Officer or General
Manager to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General
Manager to Execute an Amendment to the 2010 Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real
Property and any and all other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of this
Transaction (Ravenswood Open Space Preserve – Lands of the City and County of San
Francisco)
5. Exhibit A: Regional Map
6. Exhibit B: Project Map
7. Conceptual Trail Alignment and Cross Sections
Responsible Department Managers:
Michael Williams, Real Property Manager
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Michael Williams, Real Property Manager
Gretchen Laustsen, Planner III
Draft
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Bay Trail Connection at
Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve
September 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District i October 2015
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ........................................................................ 2
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 3
2.1 PROJECT TITLE ............................................................................................ 3
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................... 3
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT ......................................................................... 3
2.4 PROPERTY OWNERS ................................................................................... 3
2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS ............................................................. 3
2.6 ZONING DISTRICT AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................ 3
2.7 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS ... 4
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 9
3.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 9
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 10
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ............. 16
4.1 AESTHETICS ............................................................................................... 16
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ...................................... 24
4.3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................. 28
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................................................... 37
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 59
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................. 66
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................. 72
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................... 78
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................. 85
4.10 LAND USE ................................................................................................... 95
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 100
4.12 NOISE ......................................................................................................... 101
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................... 108
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................... 109
4.15 RECREATION ............................................................................................ 112
4.16 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................. 116
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................... 122
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................... 127
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 132
SECTION 6.0 AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS ..................................................................... 136
FIGURES
Figure 2.2-1: Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2.2-2: Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.2-3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................... 8
Figure 3.2-1: Proposed Trail Alignments........................................................................................ 14
Figure 3.2-2: Improvements to Existing Bay Trail Segments…………………………………...…15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ii September 2016
Figure 4.4-1: Distribution of Habitat Types .................................................................................... 44
PHOTOS
PHOTO 1: VIEW OF SFPUC SERVICE ROAD, LOOKING WEST TOWARD UNIVERSITY
AVENUE ............................................................................................................................................. 20
PHOTO 2: VIEW OF UPLAND GRASSLANDS AND ADJACENT RAILROAD TRACKS......... 20
PHOTO 3: VIEW OF COASTAL MARSH/WETLAND AREA ON THE SFPUC PROPERTY,
LOCATED IN THE EASTERN SECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA ........................................... 21
PHOTO 4: VIEW OF COASTAL MARSH/WETLAND AREA ON THE SFPUC PROPERTY,
LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL SECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA ........................................... 21
PHOTO 5: VIEW OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE
PROJECT AREA, LOOKING NORTH. ............................................................................................. 22
PHOTO 6: VIEW OF THE ADJACENT RAVENSWOOD VALVE LOT, LOOKING NORTH. .... 22
APPENDICES
Appendix A Biological Report and Biological Report Appendix A Wetland Evaluation
Appendix B Cultural Resources Report
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2 September 2016
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Initial Study of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District (MROSD). This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts which
might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the Bay Trail Connection at the
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (the “Project”).
The MROSD is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the
impacts of implementing the proposed project. The purpose of the project is to complete a short
segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Segment 2092). This document may also be used by
responsible and trustee agencies for various discretionary actions associated with implementation of
the project as described in Section 2.7 Project-related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits.
Where appropriate, this Initial Study is tiered from the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Ravenswood/4 Corners Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan (City of East Palo Alto,
2012) Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2011052006), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections
15152 and 15168 and Public Resources Code Section 21094. The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers
to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad program level EIR, with subsequent
focused environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program. The
Ravenswood/4 Corners Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan EIR and other
documents incorporated by reference in this Initial Study are available for public review at MROSD
offices at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California, 94022.
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3 September 2016
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
Bay Trail Connection at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located east of University Avenue, south of the San Mateo County Transit
District’s Dumbarton railroad line, north of the University Village residential neighborhood in the
City of East Palo Alto, and west of the existing San Francisco Bay Trail in the Ravenswood Open
Space Preserve in the City of Menlo Park (refer to Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, and 2.2-3).
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Gretchen Laustsen, Open Space Planner III
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
(650) 691-1200
2.4 PROPERTY OWNERS
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
County of San Mateo
Caltrans
2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
093-590-060 (portion), 093-590-050 (portion), and 093-590-030
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
063-590-060 (portion)
Caltrans
055-471-999
Public right-of-way, University Avenue/Tulane Avenue (portion)
2.6 ZONING DISTRICT AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Zoning Districts: ROS (Ravenswood Open Space) – City of East Palo Alto
Section 2.0 Project Information
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 4 September 2016
FP (Flood Plain District) – City of Menlo Park
General Plan Designations: Resource Management – City of East Palo Alto
Non-Urban - City of Menlo Park
2.7 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS
As listed below, the proposed project requires a number of approvals, actions, and permits from
multiple public agencies. In accordance with CEQA, the information contained in this Initial Study
will be utilized, as applicable, by these agencies in conjunction with their respective roles for the
project.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Lead Agency)
Acceptance of Grant of Trail Easement
Adoption of Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Trail Easement
Conveyance of Trail Easement to another appropriate jurisdiction to construct
and/or operate the trail
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (Responsible Agency)
Approval of Grant of Trail Easement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Nationwide Permit
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
NPDES Permit
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BCDC Permit
City of East Palo Alto (Responsible Agency)
Use Permit
Clearing and Grading Permit
Tree Removal Permit
Demolition Permit
Building Permit
Section 2.0 Project Information
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5 September 2016
C.3 Municipal Regional Permit
City of Menlo Park
Building Permit
County of Santa Clara
Approval of Project Funding Agreement to Address Alternative Mitigation
Resulting from the Loss of Recreational Opportunities due to Development
Resulting from Stanford University’s 2000 General Use Permit.
County of San Mateo
Approval of Project Funding through Measure A Grant.
Caltrans (Responsible Agency)
Right of Way (ROW) Encroachment Permit
Permit or license to use Caltrans ROW for trail connection at
University Ave and construction access
Section 2.0 Project Information
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 6 September 2016
Figure 2.2-1: Regional Map
Section 2.0 Project Information
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 7 September 2016
Figure 2.2-2: Vicinity Map
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.2-3
City of East Palo Alto
Cit
y
o
f
E
a
s
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
City of Menlo Park
Cit
y
o
f
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
SFPUCRavenswood Valve Lot
University Village
(Residential)
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
.
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
.
Xavier St.
Xa
v
i
e
r
S
t
.
Hunter St.
Hu
n
t
e
r
S
t
.
Georgetown St.
Geo
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
S
t
.
T u l a n e A v e .
Tulane Av
e
.
R
u
t
g
e
r
s
St.
R
u
t
g
e
r
s
St.
Fordham St.
For
d
h
a
m
S
t
.
Gonzaga St.
Gon
z
a
g
a
S
t
.
Illinois St.
Illi
n
o
i
s
S
t
.
Stevens Ave.
Stev
e
n
s
A
v
e
.
Temple Ct.
Templ
e
C
t
.
Drew Ct.Drew Ct.
Purdue Ave.
Purdue
A
v
e
.
U P R R (D u m b a r t o n R a i l r o a d C o r r i d o r )
UPRR (Dumbart
o
n
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
)
Hetch Hetchy Pipeline R.O.W. (SFPUC)
Het
c
h
H
e
t
c
h
y
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
R
.
O
.
W
.
(
S
F
P
U
C
)
MROSD
Ravenswood
Open Space Preserve
MROSD
Ravenswood
Open Space Preserve
Existing Bike Lane along University Avenue
SFPUC Service Road
Exisiting Multi-use Bay Trail
Project Area
Scale: 1" = ± 290'
Photo Date: June 2014
Legend
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 9 September 2016
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 BACKGROUND
3.1.1 Overview of the San Francisco Bay Trail
In 1989, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted the Bay Trail Plan. The Plan
set forth the route and policies for the development of the San Francisco Bay Trail, a 500-mile
shoreline walking and bicycling path that will one day encircle the Bay. Since 1989, over 340 miles
of the Bay Trail have been completed, following the shoreline in nine counties, passing through 47
cities and crossing four-and-a half toll bridges. The Bay Trail provides accessible recreational
opportunities for outdoor enthusiasts, including hikers, joggers, bicyclists, and skaters. It also has
important transportation benefits, providing a commute alternative for cyclists including a bicycle
crossing of the Dumbarton Bridge.
3.1.2 Development of the Bay Trail Connection at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
ABAG’s San Francisco Bay Trail Project Gap Analysis Study identifies the Ravenswood Bay Trail
gap (Segment 2092) as a short missing link in the Bay Trail on the San Francisco Peninsula. This
missing link is located between the existing on-street bicycle lane on University Avenue and the
existing unpaved multipurpose trail in the MROSD’s Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
Over the years, various planning studies have been prepared by the City of Menlo Park , City of East
Palo Alto, MROSD and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) within the project
area.
In 2005, the Bay Trail Feasibility Study was prepared by the City of Menlo Park to compare several
trail alignment alternatives for completing this trail gap. After considering community and
regulatory agency feedback, the final feasibility study proposed a Preferred Plan that showed the trail
traversing a roughly 0.5 mile long narrow corridor owned by the SFPUC between the Dumbarton rail
line and the City of East Palo Alto’s University Village neighborhood. The feasibility study was
approved by the Menlo Park and East Palo Alto City Councils, however, no process or timeline to
obtain the public trail rights from SFPUC along the preferred route was identified at that time.
In September 2012, the City of East Palo Alto approved the Ravenswood/4 Corners Transit -Oriented
Development (TOD) Specific Plan and certified the accompanying EIR (East Palo Alto 2012). This
Specific Plan includes phased implementation of a future two-lane road and pedestrian/bicycle trail
from University Avenue to connect eastward to the Bay Trail. The first phase includes the trail only,
and the second phase includes the trail and road. The EIR stated that proj ect level environmental
review of the loop road would be required during the design phases of the project. The proposed trail
project evaluated in this Initial Study tiers off of the Specific Plan EIR. Mitigation measures from
the Specific Plan EIR have been incorporated into this Initial Study, as applicable.
SFPUC recently completed the construction of the Hetch Hetchy Bay Pipeline Tunnel (SFPUC 2009)
north of the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan loop road. The pipeline alignment passes
underneath Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, requiring an easement from MROSD, which was
Section 3.0 Project Description
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 10 September 2016
granted on January 31, 2011. In exchange, MROSD obtained an open space easement on the SFPUC
parcel, where the preferred route of the Bay Trail was identified in the 2005 Bay Trail Feasibility
Study. This easement has served as a temporary placeholder for a future trail easement while
MROSD and the SFPUC evaluated the feasibility of creating a trail easement over a portion of the
open space easement for purposes of providing a public access trail.
An extensive planning effort in 2011 and 2012, which included the evaluation of current land use
constraints, construction techniques, and regulatory requirements, resulted in a consensus between
MROSD, the Cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, SFPUC, and community stakeholders on a
conceptual Bay Trail route. In April 2011, a biological field assessment was completed by Biotic
Resources Group to identify the wetland boundaries and sensitive habitats within the project area so
that the trail could be designed to avoid these areas to the greatest extent feasible . Based on the
wetland locations identified, MROSD revised the proposed conceptual trail route/alignment and
developed two options for the alignment (described in Section 3.2, Project Description below).
Subsequent field assessments were conducted in December 2014 and November 2015 to re-evaluate
the project area and review the revised trail alignments.
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.2.1 Overview
The project study area for the conceptual trail is located generally east of University Avenue, south
of the San Mateo County Transit District’s Dumbarton railroad line, north of the University Village
residential neighborhood in the City of East Palo Alto, and west of the existing San Francisco Bay
Trail in the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in the City of Menlo Park.
The project study area includes a SFPUC service road, a coastal marsh/wetland area managed by
Caltrans east of University Avenue, a smaller wetland in the central portion of the project area, an
upper grassland area in the central portion of the project area, and a wetland area managed by
SFPUC and MROSD on the eastern end of the project area. The service road provides access to
SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot to the north. A Hetch Hetchy pipeline right-of-way (ROW) transects
the project study area.
The proposed project includes several components:
1. Transfer of a public trail easement from the SFPUC property to MROSD.
2. MROSD’s adoption of a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the trail easement.
3. Potential future transfer of the public trail easement from MROSD to another public agency.
4. Design, permitting, and construction of the new Bay Trail segment.
5. Operation of the new Bay Trail segment with extended trail use hours for Bay Trail
commuters (5:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
6. Maintenance of the new Bay Trail segment.
7. Resurfacing of the existing Bay Trail segment in Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
Section 3.0 Project Description
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 11 September 2016
3.2.2 Conceptual Trail Routes
Upon completion, the new segment of the Bay Trail route would be approximately 3,000 feet in
length (refer to Figure 3.2-1). The trail itself would be eight to 14 feet wide (including shoulders)
within a 20-foot wide trail easement corridor.
There are two options proposed for the trail alignment (refer to Figure 3.2-1).
Option Number One: The first option for the alignment, from west to east, would begin at the
intersection of University Ave and the SFPUC Service road. The first segment of trail, which would
be 10 feet wide on pavement with a 4-foot gravel edge along the north side of the trail, would be
striped on the existing SFPUC service road for approximately 1,400 feet. Where the SFPUC road
turns and is no longer adjacent to the residential neighborhood, a new segment of paved trail, 10 feet
wide with 2-foot gravel shoulders on both sides, would be constructed through upland grassland for
approximately 525 feet. The trail would connect to an 80 to 120-foot long single-span bridge that
would cross over an existing seasonal pond and wetland area (central project area). After the bridge,
the trail would either take one of two forms. First, it might become a raised boardwalk until it
connects to the existing unpaved multi-use San Francisco Bay Trail within the Ravenswood Open
Space Preserve. Alternatively, the trail might be a new paved trail segment, 10 feet wide with 2-
footgravel shoulders, extending approximately 400 feet to an approximately 520-foot long raised
boardwalk that would cross the coastal salt marsh area on the eastern end of the project site. This
raised boardwalk section would then connect to the existing unpaved multi -use San Francisco Bay
Trail within Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
Option Number Two: The second option for the trail alignment is similar to the first option except
at the west end. Whereas the first option would route the trail adjacent to the Caltrans wetland on the
existing SFPUC service road, the second option proposes an approximately 230-foot long bridge to
transect the Caltrans wetland property from University Avenue to the proposed striped trail on the
SFPUC service road. The bridge over the wetland would be either a single-span or multiple span
structure. The striped trail on the service road would extend approximately 1,040 feet and would
connect to the proposed paved trail over the upland grassland area. The remaining portion of the
alignment would be consistent with the alignment proposed under the first option.
Under both options, the proposed bridge(s) would be approximately 10 to 14 feet wide with guard
rails extending a minimum of 3.5 feet above the walking surface. The bridges’ walking surface are
expected to be no more than 10 feet above ground level. The bridge structures would be comprised
of a wood deck on a prefabricated steel or aluminum truss superstructure supported by small concrete
abutments at each end which are in turn, supported by pile or helical anchor foundations. Bridge
segments would be delivered to the construction site using large trucks. Cranes would then be used
to place the bridge segments on the support abutments.
The boardwalk walking surface would be between three and eight feet above the ground and is
expected to have an eight to 10-foot wide walking path with an overall width of 10 to 14 feet
including the railings and support structure. The guard railings would be a minimum of 3.5 feet in
height. The boardwalk would be comprised of wood decking and wood railings and would be
supported by wood piles or helical anchor supports. The bridge and boardwalk features of the project
Section 3.0 Project Description
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 12 September 2016
would be similar in size and composition to other trail segments in the area and along the shoreline of
San Francisco Bay. The project materials would complement the existing vegetation and features of
the project area. Pile driving would not be required.
The portion of the trail that would be striped on the SFPUC service road provides access to the
SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot, north of the project site. The proposed trail project would not affect
the operation or accessibility of the adjacent SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot. The proposed trail
would include signage informing users that the SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot is not open to the
public and fencing or other physical barrier to prevent trail users from accessing SFPUC
facilities. The SFPUC service road would continue to accommodate a low volume of SFPUC
service vehicles after the completion of the trail. The only vegetation plantings that would occur
within SFPUC ROW would be the seeding of disturbed upland areas with native grass seed or any
revegetation required by regulatory permit requirements or mitigation.
Most of the proposed trail route is located within the City of East Palo Alto and is owned by the
SFPUC. A 100-foot segment of the alignment just east of University Avenue is within City of East
Palo Alto right-of-way. The wetland area immediately east of University Avenue and west of the
SFPUC parcel is owned by Caltrans and is located in the City of Menlo Park. Approximately 210
feet of the easternmost portion of the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Menlo Park and is
owned by the MROSD.
The proposed project also includes the repaving of approximately 3,600 linear feet (0.7 miles) of the
existing Bay Trail within the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (refer to Figure 3.2-2). The
repaving would extend south from the new trail alignment’s terminus to the southern terminus of the
Bay Trail located on the western perimeter of the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve marsh.
Signage would be placed at the trailhead on University Avenue to notify the public of the hours of
operation and trail regulations, including the prohibition of dogs on the trail and extended trail use
hours for Bay Trail commuters. Signage would also be posted on a newly installed fence separating
the public trail and SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot to notify the public that trespassing onto the
adjacent private property is prohibited. The trail would not be lighted.
3.2.2.1 Site Drainage
The drainage of the project site would change minimally from current conditions because most of the
new trail alignment will be located on existing paved roads or raised structures above the wetland
areas. Because the project will add only small sections of impervious paved surfaces, stormwater
will still easily percolate into the ground to allow for natural filtration. Additional storm drainage
facilities would be unnecessary since most of the project site is designed to remain permeable and
would be able to treat stormwater entering the San Francisco Bay.
3.2.2.2 Construction Schedule and Phasing
Based on current plans, MROSD anticipates that construction would not commence until 2018 at the
earliest and the duration of construction is estimated to be approximately 22 weeks. It is anticipated
that the construction sequence would be as follows: The first four weeks would consist of
Section 3.0 Project Description
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 13 September 2016
mobilization and site preparation. The next 17 weeks would consist of trail striping on the service
road, construction of paved trail segments, boardwalk and bridge construction, resurfacing of the
existing trail segment and plantings. The last week would include site cleanup and demobilization.
This sequence is subject to change.
The construction of the paved trail through the central grassy area may require temporary
construction access across a small wetland area. To minimize trampling of vegetation, construction
matting is proposed to cover the wetland areas needed for temporary access. Based on the
construction schedule, the matting would be in place for no more than two days.
Trail construction equipment would include a striping machine, road grader, small excavator, skip
loader, power auger, weed mower and various hand tools (e.g. power drills, skill saws, and hammer).
Bridge segments would be delivered to the construction site using large trucks. Cranes would then
be required to place the bridge segment on the support abutments. The boardwalk would be
constructed using hand tools and light weight construction equipment.
PROPOSED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS FIGURE 3.2-1
DUMBAR
T
O
N
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
(
S
A
M
T
R
A
N
S
)
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
(EAST PALO ALTO)
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
HET
C
H
H
E
T
C
H
Y
P
I
P
E
L
I
N
E
R
.
O
.
W
.
(SF
P
U
C
)
RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
(MROSD)
CIT
Y
O
F
E
A
S
T
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
CIT
Y
O
F
M
E
N
L
O
P
A
R
K
SFPUC
STRUCTURE
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
CALTRANS
SFPUC SFPUC
LEGEND
Bridge over Wetlands
Preferred Alignment
Alternative Alignment
Trail Striped on SFPUC Service Road
Paved Trail on Grassy Uplands
Boardwalk-Style Raised Trail above Wetlands
Bridge over Wetlands
Existing SFPUC Service Road
Existing Bike Lane
Existing Multi-Use Bay Trail
Convert Multi-Use Bay Trail to Asphalt
Parcel Line (Approximate)
RAVENSWOOD OP
PRESERVE
(MROSD)
CITY
O
F
E
A
S
T
P
A
L
O
A
L
TO
CITY
O
F
M
E
N
L
O
P
A
RK
0 50’ 100’ 200’
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING BAY TRAIL SEGMENTS FIGURE 3.2-2
LEGEND
Existing Bike Lane
Existing Multi-Use Bay Trail
Existing Ravenwood Open Space Bridge
Convert Multi-Use Bay Trail to Asphalt
Proposed Trail Alignment
0 100’ 200’ 400’
Ravenswood
Open Space
Preserve
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 16 September 2016
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project site, as well as
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as
recommended in the CEQA Guidelines, identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the
proposed project is implemented.
The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The
sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all
significant project impacts. “Mitigation Measures” are me asures that will minimize, avoid, or
eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guideline 15370).
In December 2015, the California Supreme Court published an opinion [California Building Industry
Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478)] which
confirmed that CEQA, with several specific exceptions, is concerned with the impacts of a project on
the environment, not the effects of the existing environment on a project. Therefore, the evaluation
of the significance of project impacts under CEQA in the following sections focuses on impacts of
the project on the environment, including whether a project may exacerbate existing environmental
hazards.
Where applicable, this chapter also identifies standard engineering practices and appropriate
MROSD Resource Management Policies that serve to address the potential for impacts to occur to a
project given existing conditions. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, projects located in
geologic hazard zones, floodplains, or areas with high noise levels. Providing this information is
consistent with one of the primary objectives of CEQA and this document, which is to provide
objective information to decision-makers and the public regarding a project as a whole. The CEQA
Guidelines and the courts are clear that a CEQA document (e.g., EIR or Initial Study) can include
information of interest even if such information is not an “environmental impact” as defined by
CEQA.
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Setting
4.1.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
State Scenic Highways Program
The State Scenic Highways Program was created by the California State Legislature in
1963 and is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The
program is intended to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and
adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The state laws governing the Scenic
Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260 through 263. A
highway may be designated as a scenic highway by Caltrans depending on how much of the natural
landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 17 September 2016
development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. There are no designated scenic
highways visible from the project site.
SFPUC Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy
for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties
As part of its utility system, the SFPUC operates and maintains hundreds of miles of water pipelines
and provides public use on their water pipeline property or right-of-way (ROW), consistent with their
existing plans and policies. The Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Policies help inform how and
in which instances the ROW can serve the needs of third parties – including public agencies, private
parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers seeding to provide recreational and other use
opportunities to local communities.
In terms of aesthetics, structures on SFPUC ROW are generally prohibited. SFPUC does not allow
any light fixtures on the ROW that require electrical conduits running parallel to the pipelines. In
addition, all lighting is required have shielding to prevent spill over onto adjacent properties. The
proposed project does not including lighting or any structures and is therefore, consistent with
SFPUC policies related to lighting and overall aesthetics.
East Palo Alto General Plan
The East Palo Alto General Plan includes land use goals and policies to maintain and enhance the
visual character and quality of East Palo Alto communities by avoiding or abating the intrusion of
disruptive, non-conforming buildings or uses. The East Palo Alto General Plan designates University
Avenue as an important gateway to the city. The project complies with General Plan
Conservation/Open Space Policy 2.4, which requires new development to maximize the enjoyment
and promotion of natural resource areas (such as the proposed Bay Trail), including the baylands,
Cooley Landing, San Francisquito Creek, and the shoreline of San Francisco Bay.
City of Menlo Park
The City of Menlo Park’s General Plan land use goals and policies seek to maintain and enhance the
aesthetic character and quality of the City of Menlo Park’s communities. The General Plan Land Use
Policy I-G-7 requires public access to the Bay for the scenic enjoyment of the open water, sloughs,
and marshes to be protected. The City of Menlo Park has also established a goal (Goal OSC1 in the
General Plan) to protect, conserve and enhance valuable natural resources, open areas and designated
open space lands rich in scenic value, wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature th rough conservation
and restoration efforts. The project is consistent with these goals and policies.
Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
The Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan includes policies to maintain the area ’s visual and
aesthetic resources. The following policies apply to the project site.
Policy LU-1.6: Require project proponents to design all new development so that it
responds to the scale, grain, and character of existing nearby development.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 18 September 2016
Policy LU-2.3: Ensure that all development in the Plan Area along University Avenue and
Bay Road adheres to the Specific Plan’s design standards and guidelines.
Policy LU-3.2: Ensure that new development throughout the Plan Area maintains or
improves the character of any adjacent residential neighborhoods.
The proposed trail is consistent with these policies.
4.1.1.2 Existing Conditions
The project area is approximately 3,000 feet in length and extends from University Avenue in the
City of East Palo Alto to the existing San Francisco Bay Trail in Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
in the City of Menlo Park. The project area is located east of University Avenue, south of the San
Mateo County Transit District’s Dumbarton railroad line (currently inactive but planned for future
use) and the SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot, north of the University Village residential
neighborhood, and west of the existing San Francisco Bay Trail in the Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve. The project area is not located within a scenic viewshed or along a designated scenic
highway.
The project area consists of a flat paved SFPUC service road, which extends 1,400 feet east of
University Avenue, as shown in Photo 1. Ruderal scrub (weedy shrubs and herbaceous plants)
occurs immediately to the north and south of this road and along the edge of the railroad, as shown in
Photo 2. Ruderal grassland area (which supports upland, weedy vegetation) occurs in higher
elevation areas to the east of the road, adjacent to the salt marsh, and along the edge of the railroad.
There are trees located adjacent to the service road and railroad (refer to Photos 1 and 2).
The eastern portion of project area is undeveloped and primarily consists of upland grassland and
coastal salt marsh habitat (including vegetation such as pickleweed and salt grass, wetlands and an
open pond). Views of the coastal marsh/wetland areas on the SFPUC property (to the north and east
of the SFPUC service road) are shown in Photos 3 and 4. A wetland area, owned by Caltrans, is
immediately to the east of University Avenue and to the west of the SFPUC service road.
Views of University Avenue and the SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot are shown in Photos 5 and 6,
respectively. Views of the project area are generally limited to the Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve, the University Village residential development, University Avenue, and the SFPUC
Ravenswood Valve Lot area.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 19 September 2016
4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
1-5
2) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
1,2,7
3) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
1
4) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which will adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
1,2
4.1.2.1 Impacts to a Scenic Vista
The project site is not located within a scenic view corridor or scenic vista and, therefore, would not
result in a significant aesthetic impact to scenic views.
4.1.2.2 Impacts Scenic Resources and Changes to Visual Character
The project area is not located in the vicinity of a state scenic highway and there are no historic
buildings or structures on the project site (refer to Section 4.5 Cultural Resources); therefore, no
impacts to historic structures within a state scenic highway would occur.1
The Ravenswood Open Space Preserve is considered a bayfront scenic resource. Construction of the
trail within the preserve would be consistent with the public access policies of MROSD, the Bay
Trail Plan, and the policies of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. By its nature, the trail would not
involve large buildings, structures, or lighting that might be incompatible with the open space
character of the Preserve. It is also important to note that the project itself will provide the public
with access to the scenic resources that are present within the Preserve.
1 Caltrans. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. San Mateo County. Available at:
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/>. Accessed July 8, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 20 September 2016
Photo 1: View of SFPUC Service Road, looking west toward University Avenue
Photo 2: View of upland grasslands and adjacent railroad tracks
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 21 September 2016
Photo 3: View of coastal marsh/wetland area on the SFPUC property, located in the eastern section
of the project area
Photo 4: View of coastal marsh/wetland area on the SFPUC property, located in the central section of
the project area
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 22 September 2016
Photo 5: View of University Avenue immediately to the west of the project area, looking north.
Photo 6: View of the adjacent Ravenswood Valve Lot, looking north.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 23 September 2016
As described in the following paragraph, certain components of the trail would be visible from
adjacent areas but would not constitute a significant adverse visual effect and/or significant change in
the area’s visual character.
The completed boardwalk and bridge(s) would be visible from the adjacent surroundings including to
recreational visitors on other nearby trails. The walking surface of the boardwalk portion of the trail
would be no more than eight feet above ground level with guard rails extending a minimum of 3.5
feet in height. The boardwalk would have an overall width of 10- to 14-feet, which would include
the railings and support structure. The boardwalk would be comprised of wood decking and wood
railings and would be supported by wood piles or helical anchor supports. The bridge structures
would be comprised of a wood deck on a prefabricated steel or aluminum truss superstructure
supported by small concrete abutments at each end which are in turn supported by pile or helical
anchor foundations. These features of the project would be similar in size and composition to other
trail segments in the area and along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, and the project materials
would complement the existing vegetation and features of the project area. Pile driving would not be
required.
The proposed alignment of the trail has been designed to avoid the removal of trees, the loss of which
could otherwise be considered a potentially significant visual effect. Vegetation to be
removed/disturbed for the trail would be limited to shrubs, grasses, and low-lying plants. The
permanent footprint of the trail would not be a significant visual change, as viewed in the context of
the preserve. Further, vegetation affected by temporary construction activities will recover naturally.
Thus, the proposed project would not substantially damage any scenic resources or substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.
4.1.2.3 Light and Glare Impacts
The proposed project would not create a new source of light or glare as the trail would not be lighted.
Construction would be limited to daytime hours, in accordance with the City of East Palo Alto’s and
the City of Menlo Park’s municipal codes. Therefore additional lighting would not be necessary or
used during construction. Lighting generated by trail users (e.g., commuters using headlamps or
bike lights) would be temporary, sporadic, and brief in nature and is not considered to be a new long-
term light source within the project area. For these reasons, light or glare from the project would
have no impact on day or night views in the area.
4.1.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in any significant aesthetic or visual impacts.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 24 September 2016
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2.1 Setting
4.2.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
California Department of Conservation
The California Department of Conservation (DOC), under the Division of Land Resource Protection,
has set up the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which monitors the conversion
of the state’s farmlands to and from agricultural uses. The map series identifies eight classifications
and uses a minimum mapping unit size of 10 acres. The FMMP also produces a biannual report on
the amount of land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use. The FMMP sets standards
and relies upon information from National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys,
NRCS land inventory and monitoring criteria, and land use and water availability. While the FMMP
provides an informational service, it does not constitute state regulation of local land use decisions.
California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was enacted in 1965 in
order to preserve agricultural lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban
uses. Counties and cities that choose to participate in the Williamson Act program implement the
program through contracts with landowners that restrict use of the land in return for reduced property
taxes, in accordance with local regulations and state law. Land under contract must be devoted to
agricultural uses, open space and recreation uses as narrowly defined in the act, and incidental and
compatible uses also defined in the Act and by local regulation. Williamson Act contracts have a
minimum duration of ten years, and are automatically renewed unless the landowner or local
government decides to “non-renew” a contract. Non-renewal of a contract involves a nine-year
termination period, during which the provisions of the contract remain in place and property taxes
return to the standard rate.
MROSD’s Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (APN: 063-590-060) has a Williamson Act contract
with the City of Menlo Park, dating from before the MROSD’s purchase in the 1989, when the
property was operated as a salt pond. As a government agency, MROSD is exempt from taxes;
therefore, the tax benefit typical of Williamson Act contracts has never applied to MROSD.
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection
The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is a government-appointed body within the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). It is responsible for developing the general fo rest policy
of the state, for determining the guidance policies of CAL FIRE, and for representing the state's
interest in federal forestland in California. Together, the Board and CAL FIRE work to carry out the
California Legislature's mandate to protect and enhance the state's unique forest and wildland
resources.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 25 September 2016
The Board is charged with protecting the forest resources of all the wildland areas of California that
are not under federal jurisdiction. These resources include major commercial and non-commercial
stands of timber, areas reserved for parks and recreation, the woodland, brush-range watersheds, and
all such lands in private and state ownership that contribute to California's forest resource wealth.
4.2.1.2 Existing Agricultural and Forest Resources
The San Mateo County Important Farmland 2012 Map designates the project area to the south of the
San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) Dumbarton Railroad Corridor and north of University
Village as Urban and Built-Up Land. Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as land that is occupied
by structures with a building density of at least one unit to one and one -half acres, or approximately
six structures to a 10-acre parcel. The project area to the northeast and east of University Village (the
SFPUC grassy upland area and Ravenswood Open Space Reserve area) is designated as Other Land,
which is defined as land that is not included in any other mapping category. No lands designated as
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance are present.
The project area is not currently used for agricultural purposes. Existing uses in the project area
include an SFPUC service road from University Avenue to the unpaved Hetch Hetchy Pipeline
rights-of-way, vacant and grassy upland area, and Ravenswood Open Space Preserve area which
consists of wetland and grassland areas, and an existing multi -use San Francisco Bay Trail.
The City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan and Zoning District has designated the project area from
northeast and east of University Village (vacant grassland and wetland area) to the City of East Palo
Alto border as Ravenswood Open Space (ROS), and the area to the north of University Village and
south of the future SamTrans Dumbarton Rail Corridor is not zoned. The project area that is zoned
ROS does not permit agricultural uses. The City of Menlo Park has designated the project area
located within the Caltrans parcel, approximately 80 feet of the SFPUC service road, Ravenswood
Open Space Preserve as a Non-Urban in the General Plan and the zoning district for this area is
Flood Plain (FP) District.
As mentioned above, the portion of the project site within the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve has
a Williamson Act contract with the City of Menlo Park, originating prior to MROSD’s ownership
when the property was operated as a salt pond. Salt production ceased after the MROSD purchase,
and a low-intensity recreational trail system was opened using the salt pond levees. In 2000, the
preserve levee was breached and tidal flow restored to simulate natural conditions, which has
resulted in the creation of an extensive marshland habitat. The project site is upland of the former
salt pond levee and appears never to have been a part of the salt pond system.
The project area is not considered forest land or timberland.2 The project area is not a forest
resource, nor are there forest resources in the surrounding areas.
2 According to California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), “Forest land” is land that can support 10-percent
native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of
one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water qualit y, recreation,
and other public benefits. According to California Public Resources Code Section 4526, “Timberland” means land,
other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land,
which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber
and other forest products, including Christmas trees.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 26 September 2016
4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) 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?
1,10
2) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
1,2,6
3) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
1,2
4) Result in a loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
1,2,4,5
5) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
1
4.2.2.1 Agricultural and Forest Resources Impacts
As described above, the local General Plans and Zoning Districts do not designate the project area for
agricultural or salt pond purposes or forest land/timberland. The development of a trail in the project
area would not, therefore, result in the loss of agricultural land or forest land/timberland. In addition,
the project area is located in an urban area and there are no adjacent properties used for agricultural,
salt production pond, or forest land/timberland purposes. The portion of the project within the
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve has a Williamson Act contract dating from before the property
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27 September 2016
was an open space preserve. MROSD or the City of Menlo Park could initiate the nonrenewal
process for the Williamson Act at their own discretion, but to date the process has not been initiated.
Regardless, the Williamson Act does not have any land use implications on the trail project, because
as mentioned above, no impacts to agricultural or forest land would occur as a result of the project
and the Williamson Act contract does not prohibit open space trails or other elements of the project .
For this reason, the proposed project would not result in conversion of off-site farmland or forest
land/timberland to urban uses or conflict with any Williamson Act contracts.
4.2.3 Conclusion
The project would not result in any impacts to agricultural or forest resources.
(No Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 28 September 2016
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 Setting
4.3.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
Federal, state, and regional agencies regulate air quality in the Bay Area Air Basin, within which the
proposed project is located. At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
responsible for overseeing implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The California Air
Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and
oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean
Air Act. The primary agency that regulates air quality in the project area is the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD has permit authority over stationary sources, acts as
the primary reviewing agency for environmental documents, and develops regulations that must be
consistent with or more stringent than, federal and state air quality laws and regulations.
BAAQMD prepared and adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP). This CAP updates the
most recent ozone plan; the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Unlike previous Bay Area CAPs, the 2010 CAP is
a multi-pollutant air quality plan addressing four categories of air pol lutants:
Ground-level ozone and the key ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases and
nitrogen oxide), as required by State law;
Particulate matter, primarily PM2.5, as well as the precursors to secondary PM2.5;
Toxic air contaminants (TAC); and
Greenhouse gases.
While the CAP addresses state requirements, it also provides the basis for developing future control
plans to meet federal requirements (NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5.
BAAQMD has also developed CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that provide guidance for evaluating air
quality impacts of projects and plans. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide procedures for
evaluating potential operation- and construction-related impacts during the environmental review
process, consistent with CEQA requirements.
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Menlo Park and City of East Palo Alto, have the authority and
responsibility to reduce air pollution through their decision-making authority. Both cities and other
jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin have used the thresholds and methodology for
assessing air emissions put forth by BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual data
prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds.
In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the Cities of East Palo Alto
and Menlo Park assess the air quality impacts of new development projects, require mitigation of
potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitor and
enforce the implementation of such mitigation measures. The cities use the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines as their guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development
proposals within their jurisdiction.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 29 September 2016
City of East Palo Alto Climate Action Plan
The City of East Palo Alto Climate Action Plan provides guidance for community efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Action Plan also includes measures to lower emissions from
criteria pollutants and TACs. The Climate Action Plan includes 23 actions to address climate change
that mostly focus on emission reductions and energy and water conservation goals.
City of Menlo Park General Plan
The General Plan guides development and use of land within the City. General Plan Policy OSC5.1
(Air and Water Quality Standards) requires the City to apply standards and policies established by
BAAQMD, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP), and City of
Menlo Park Climate Action Plan through the CEQA process and other means as applicable.
4.3.1.2 Existing Air Quality Conditions
Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of
pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major
determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical
pollutants, sunshine.
Northwest winds and northerly winds are most common in East Palo Alto, reflecting the orientation
of the Bay and the San Francisco peninsula. Winds from these directions carry pollutants released by
autos and factories from upwind areas of the peninsula towards East Palo Alto, particularly in the
summer months. Winds are lightest on average in fall and winter. During the fall and winter, there
are periods of several days when wind speeds are low and local pollutants build up.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The project site is within the western portions of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay
Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable
particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). High ozone levels are caused by the
cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursors
react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling these precursor
pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempt to reduce ozone levels. High ozone levels aggravate
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, and increase coughing and chest
discomfort.
PM is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter, or particles that have a
diameter 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of
2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both
regionwide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels
aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality, and result
in reduced lung function growth in children.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 30 September 2016
As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone, PM 10, and PM2.5
BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for precursor air pollutants. These thresholds
are described below.
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria/precursor pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are
another group of pollutants of concern. There are many different types of TACs, with varying
degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and
chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and
motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different TACs. Health risks from
TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Exposure to TACs can result
from emissions from normal operations (i.e., vehicle operations), as well as accidental releases.
Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three -quarters
of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the CARB, diesel
exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the
evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in
diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the
CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the Federal
Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.
BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance for local community risk and hazard impacts apply
to both the siting of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor. These thresholds are described
below.
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines require that projects be evaluated for community risk
when they are located within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic volume roadways (10,000 average
annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources of TACs.
BAAQMD developed the Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool which maps the locations of
stationary permitted sources of TACs in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD screening tool does not show
any stationary permitted TAC sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. The project site is within
1,000 feet of University Avenue which is considered a state highway. According to the
Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan Final EIR (September 2012), sensitive receptors (i.e.,
children under 14, senior citizens over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic
respiratory diseases) located in land uses (e.g., residences, schools, workplaces, etc.) within 60 feet of
University Avenue could be exposed to significant levels of TACs emitted from traffic.
4.3.1.3 Existing Odors
Common sources of odors include wastewater treatment plants, transfer stations, coffee roasters,
painting/coating operations, etc. Table 3-3 in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines has a list of common
odor sources with associated screening distances. Projects that would place a new sensitive receptor
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 31 September 2016
farther than the applicable screening distance from an existing odor source would not likely result in
a significant odor impact. There are no observed odor sources near the site.
4.3.1.4 Existing Sensitive Receptors
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as population groups that are particularly sensitive to the
effects of air pollutants (i.e., children, the elderly, and people with illnesses). Places where sensitive
receptors are likely to be located include schools, hospitals, and residential areas. Sensitive receptors
in the project area include the adjacent University Village residences, which are approximately 25
feet or more from the project area. Trail users are not sensitive receptors because they are on the trail
for relatively short, temporary, and inconsistent periods of time. Users of the proposed trail would
not experience any conditions that are not present on other trails in the Bay area.
4.3.1.5 CEQA Significance Thresholds
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare
or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. In June
2010, the Air District’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update
of their CEQA Guidelines. The updated CEQA Guidelines, which were updated in May 2011,
review and describe assessment methodologies, and mitigation strategies for criteria pollutants, toxic
air contaminants, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions.
As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may
have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead
Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. Lead Agencies in the
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air
emissions and/or health effects adopted by BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual
data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds.
The analysis in this Initial Study is based upon the general methodologies in the most recent
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (updated May 2011) and numeric thresholds for the San
Francisco Bay Basin, including the thresholds listed in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 32 September 2016
Table 4.3-1: Thresholds of Significance Used in Air Quality Analyses
Pollutant
Construction Operation-Related
Average
Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Average
Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Maximum
Annual Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG, NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82
(exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54
(exhaust) 54 10
Fugitive Dust
(PM10/PM2.5)
Best
Management
Practices
None None
Local Carbon Monoxide
(CO) None 9.0 parts per million [ppm] (8-hour
average); 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Risk and Hazards for New
Sources and Receptors
(Project)
Same as
Operational
Threshold
Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in one
(1) million
Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0
Hazard Index (chronic or acute)
Ambient PM2.5 increase: > 0.3 µ/m3
[Zone of influence: 1,000-foot radius
from property line of source or
receptor]
Risk and Hazards for New
Sources and Receptors
(Cumulative)
Same as
Operational
Threshold
Increased cancer risk of >100 in one
(1) million
Increased non-cancer risk of > 10.0
Hazard Index (chronic or acute)
Ambient PM2.5 increase: > 0.8 µ/m3
[Zone of influence: 1,000-foot radius
from property line of source or
receptor]
Odors Five (5) confirmed complaints per year
averaged over three (3) years
Sources: BAAQMD Thresholds Options and Justification Report (2009) and BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated May 2011).
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 33 September 2016
4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Beneficial
Impact
Information
Source(s)
Will the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
1,2,12,
13,14
2) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
1,2,13
3) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors?
1,2,13
4) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
1,2
5) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
1,2,13
4.3.2.1 Air Quality Impacts
Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan
As noted previously, the adopted Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) contains policies and strategies
that have the goal of reducing the emissions of air pollutants and bringing the region into compliance
with the Clean Air Act. Such policies and strategies include the construction of facilities that
promote bicycle and pedestrian usage, thereby reducing trips made by motor vehicles. The proposed
trail project is consistent with the CAP’s transportation control measures (TCMs) because it will
close an existing gap in the Bay Trail, which in turn will facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel.
The City of East Palo Alto’s Climate Action Plan also includes similar measures consistent with the
CAP.
Since the project would further the goals and objectives of the adopted CAP, this impact is
considered beneficial.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 34 September 2016
Long-Term Emissions of Criteria Pollutants & TACs
The proposed project is a pedestrian and bicycle trail project that completes a critical gap in a
regional trail system. Once completed, the trail would serve to accommodate and facilitate non-
motorized transportation and would not generate vehicle trips that would emit criteria pollutants or
TACs. As an alternate mode of transportation that results in fewer motorized vehicles on the
roadway, the trail would not generate new air pollutant emissions and no long-term air quality impact
would result. [Note: Emissions from vehicles patrolling and maintaining the trail would be
negligible and would be well below BAAQMD’s thresholds for analysis.]
At the westerly terminus of the project, users of the trail would be in proximity to University Avenue,
a highway with a relatively high volume of traffic and accompanying emissions of TACs. However,
any exposure of trail users to elevated levels of TACs from traffic would, by definition, be brief since
users would not be stationary. Therefore, the risk from any transitory exposure of trail users to TACs
from traffic on University Avenue would not be significant.
Short-Term Emissions of Criteria Pollutants & TACs
Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality. Construction activities such as
earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate
exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that affect local and regional air quality.
Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissio ns. Asphalt used in paving is also a
source of organic gases for a short time after its application.
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2011) contain a screening threshold of 67 acres of
parkland for construction-related impacts for criteria pollutants and their precursors (e.g., NOx, ROG,
particulate matter). The screening criteria provides lead agencies with a conservative indication of
whether a project could result in significant air quality impacts by exceeding the emissions thresholds
for criteria pollutants and their precursors shown in Table 4.3-1 (54 lbs. per day for ROG, NOx, or
PM2.5 and 82 lbs. per day of PM10).
The project size (approximately two acres for construction of the new trail alignment and 16 acres for
pavement of the existing trail) is substantially below BAAQMD’s screening threshold of 67 acres for
construction period criteria air pollutant emissions and, therefore, does not require modeling of
project construction emissions. The proposed project would, therefore, have less than significant
construction criteria air pollutant emissions impacts.
The primary concern for nearby residents in University Village would be exposure to diesel
emissions from diesel-powered construction equipment and diesel trucks associated with
construction activities. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is designated as a TAC by CARB for the
cancer risk associated with long-term (i.e., 70 years) exposure to DPM. However, given that
construction would occur for a relatively short period of time and progress linearly along the trail
alignment in short stages, exposure to DPM would be minimal and temporary. Further, work along
the trail segment adjacent to University Village would primarily consist of the striping of the existing
service road, so use of diesel-emitting equipment near these residences would be limited and
temporary.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 35 September 2016
Construction Dust Emissions
Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction of the project.
The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust
generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Construction activities
would increase dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind. Nearby land uses,
particularly sensitive receptors (specifically located at University Village) to the south and west of
the site, could be affected by dust generated during construction activities.
The proposed project would involve an approximately 22-week construction period (four weeks of
site mobilization and preparation and approximately 17 weeks of construction, and one week of site
cleanup and demobilization) that would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions,
primarily particulates in the form of dust. These emissions would be generated primarily from
construction equipment, earth disturbance, and construction worker and other construction -related
vehicle trips to and from the site. While the construction period will be of short duration and there
will be limited exhaust generating equipment necessary to complete the project, air quality impacts
related to dust emissions to adjacent residences could be potentially significant.
Impact AIR-1: The construction of the proposed trail would temporarily affect local air quality
and increase exposure of sensitive receptors to levels of dust above BAAQMD
significance thresholds.
Implementation of the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measures for dust control
would ensure compliance with the BAAQMD and reduce impacts to nearby sensitive receptors
during construction to a less than significant level.
MM AIR-1: The proposed project shall include the following BAAQMD best management
practices during construction:
All exposed unvegetated surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil
piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered with
potable water two times per day as required by weather conditions or
covered using weed-free straw mulch or erosion control matting/blanket.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site
shall be covered.
Stabilized construction entrances and/or on-site truck tire washing
stations shall be utilized at the construction site to reduce visible mud or
dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads, to the maximum extent feasible.
The use of power sweeping equipment is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required
by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485
of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access points.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 36 September 2016
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and
person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This
person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air
District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Odors
The trail project would not introduce new permanent sources of odor. Construction of the project
will result in some odors associated with exhaust from the construction equipment. Odors would be
temporary and isolated to the local area and not likely noticeable for extended periods of time beyond
the project site. For these reasons, the project would not create objectionable odors that would affect
a substantial number of people, and the project’s odor impacts would be less than significant.
4.3.3 Conclusion
The long-term air quality impacts of the project would be beneficial because there would be a
reduction in motor vehicle trips. Air quality impacts related to construction would occur; however,
all impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of the mitigation
measures described in this section. These measures are consistent with the BAAQMD recommended
measures for dust control and Best Management Practices. With implementation of these measures,
the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to air quality and would not conflict with
any air quality plans. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 37 September 2016
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based on the Biological Report completed by Biotic Resources Group in
September 2016. This report is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix A.
4.4.1 Setting
4.4.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed wildlife species from harm or “take,”
which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap , capture, collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation
that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. An activity can be defined as
“take” even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than
listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under FESA only if they
occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a Cl ean Water Act Section
404 fill permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species
under FESA, while the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over federally
listed, threatened and endangered, marine, and anadromous fish.
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory
birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The trustee
agency that addresses issues related to the MBTA is the USFWS. Migratory birds protected under
this law include all native birds and certain game birds. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of
birds, and bird nests and eggs. The MBTA protects active nests from destruction and all nests of
species protected by the MBTA, whether active or not. An active nest under the MBTA, is defined
as one having eggs or young. Nest starts, prior to egg laying, are not protected from destruction.
Federal Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (Jurisdictional waters) are subject to
the jurisdiction of the USACE under provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act and
Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. These waters may include all waters used, or
potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide,
all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes,
natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,”
tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands
adjacent to “Waters of the U.S.”
Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of
fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of t he USACE. No USACE permit
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 38 September 2016
would be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (see “Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Section 401 Water Quality
Certification” section below for a further description). The northern coastal salt marsh present within
the project area is jurisdictional under current USACE regulation.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), regulates Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Protection of EFH is mandated
through changes implemented in 1996 to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to protect the loss of habitat necessary to maintain
sustainable fisheries in the United States. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as “those waters
and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C.
1802(10)). NMFS further defines essential fish habitat as areas that “contain habitat essential to the
long-term survival and health of our nation’s fisheries.” EFH can include the water column, certain
bottom types such as sandy or rocky bottoms, vegetation such as eelgrass or kelp, or structurally
complex coral or oyster reefs. Under regulatory guidelines issued by NMFS, any federal agency that
authorizes, funds, or undertakes action that may affect EFH is required to consult with NMFS (50
CFR 600.920). The project site is not considered an EFH.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or
proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with CESA, the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over state-listed species. The
CDFW regulates activities that may result in “take” (i.e., “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or
attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) of individuals listed under CESA. Habitat
degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the CDFW
Code. The CDFW, however, has interpreted “take” to include the “killing of a member of a species
which is the proximate result of habitat modification.”
The National Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the Fish and Game
Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. There are 64 species, subspecies, and varieties
of plants that are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare
native plants, but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and
after properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in
land use, and in certain other situations. Please see Fish and Game Code section 1900 et seq. for
more information.
During CEQA review, public agencies must evaluate and disclose impacts to the 220 plant species
protected under CESA and the NPPA, and in most cases must mitigate all significant impacts to these
species to a level of less than significance. In addition, during the CEQA process, public agencies
must also address plant species that may not be listed under CESA or the NPPA, but that may
nevertheless meet the definition of rare or endangered provided in CEQA. CDFW works in
collaboration with the California Native Plant Society and with botanical experts throughout the state
to maintain an inventory of rare and endangered plants, and the similar special vascular plants,
bryophytes, and lichens list.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 39 September 2016
Species on these lists may meet the CEQA definition of rare or endangered. As the trustee agency for
the wildlife of California, which includes plants, ecological communities and the habitat upon which
they depend, CDFW advises public agencies during the CEQA process to help ensure that the actions
they approve do not significantly impact such resources. CDFW often advises that plant species with
an appropriate California rare plant ranking in the inventory be properly analyzed by the lead agency
during project review to ensure compliance with CEQA. MROSD also has policies related to the
protection of special status plant species, as described below.
CDFW Code
The CDFW Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts on, many of the state’s fish,
wildlife, and sensitive habitats. The Code exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of rivers, lakes,
and streams according to provisions of Sections 1601-1603 of the CDFW Code. The CDFW Code
requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fill or removal of material within the bed and
banks of a watercourse or waterbody and for the removal of riparian vegetation. The marsh, pond,
and drainages within the northern coastal salt marsh areas of the project site are within the regulatory
jurisdiction of CDFW.
Certain sections of the CDFW Code describe regulations pertaining to certain wildlife species. For
example, CDFW Code Sections 3503, 2513, and 3800 protect most native birds, including their nests
and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of
reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFW. In addition, CDFW Code Sections 3511,
4700, 5050, and 5515 designate fully protected birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Fully
protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. No licenses or permits may be issued
for take of fully protected species, except for necessary scientific research and relocation of fully
protected bird species for the protection of livestock. The definition of “take” is the same under the
Fish and Game Code and the CESA. Incidental takes of fully protected species are not authorized by
law, except when fully protected species are included as “covered species” as part of a Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Section 401 Water Quality Certification
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for protecting surface, ground,
and coastal waters within the state. The SWRCB, together with the nine Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (RWQCBs), is the state agency charged with implementing water quality
certification in California. The SWRCB requires that a project apply for and obtain a Clean Water
Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for any project that requires a Clean Water Act Section
404 permit from the USACE.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface, ground, and coastal waters
within its boundaries, pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of the California
Water Code. As previously noted, the RWQCB has jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act for activities that could result in a discharge o f dredged or fill material to a water body.
Many wetlands fall into RWQCB jurisdiction, including some wetlands and waters that are not
subject to USACE jurisdiction. RWQCB jurisdiction of other waters, such as streams and lakes,
extends to all areas below the ordinary high water mark. The marsh, ponds and drainages within the
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 40 September 2016
northern coastal salt marsh areas of the project site are located within the jurisdictional area of the
RWQCB.
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the SWRCB and the nine regional boards also
have the responsibility of granting Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits and waste discharge requirements for certain point -source and non-point
discharges to waters. These regulations limit impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats from a variety
of urban sources.
SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy
SFPUC has established policies to manage vegetation on the transmission, distribution, and
collection systems within SFPUC ROW so that it does not pose a threat or hazard to the system’s
integrity and infrastructure or impede utility maintenance and operations. The Integrated Vegetation
Management Policy includes measures to manage woody vegetation, annual grasse s, and weeds,
reduce fire risk, and reduce the use of herbicides within the ROW.
The SFPUC’s Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy also requires the submittal of a
planting plan for projects within their ROW to include a layout of vegetation placement and sources
of irrigation. In addition, SFPUC’s Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy (June 27,
2006) states that ROW and properties in urban surroundings under their management will be
managed in a manner that protects and restores habitat value where available, and community
participation in decisions that significant interrupt or alter current land use on these parcels.
The only plantings that would occur within SFPUC ROW would be the seeding of disturbed upland
areas with native grass seed or any revegetation required by permit requirements or mitigation. The
community will have input into the project during public hearings during which, the approval of the
Initial Study/MND and project will be considered.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
State legislation, the McAteer-Petris Act, was passed in 1965 to establish and govern the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The BCDC is dedicated to the
protection and enhancement of San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan),
completed by the BCDC in 1969, regulates development in and around the Bay, and includes a range
of policies on public access, water quality, fill, and project design. The Bay Plan also designates
shoreline areas that should be reserved for water-related purposes like ports, industry, public
recreation, airports, and wildlife refuges.
BCDC regulatory jurisdiction consists of 1) San Francisco Bay and 2) a 100-foot wide band adjacent
to the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. These areas are defined in the McAteer-Petris Act (PRC
Section 66610), as follows:
San Francisco Bay, being all areas that are subject to tidal action from the south end of the Bay to
the Golden Gate (Point Bonita-Point Lobos) and to the Sacramento River line (a line between
Stake Point and Simmons Point, extended northeasterly to the mouth of Marshall Cut), including
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 41 September 2016
all sloughs, and specifically, the marshlands lying between mean high tide and five feet above
mean sea level; tidelands (land lying between mean high tide and mean low tide); and submerged
lands (land lying below mean low tide).
A shoreline band consisting of all territory located between the shoreline of San Francisco Bay as
defined above and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line, but excluding any
portions of such territory which are included in other areas of BCDC jurisdiction; provided that
the Commission may, by resolution, exclude from its area of jurisdiction any area within the
shoreline band that it finds and declares is of no regional importance to the Bay.
Applying the above definitions to the area of the proposed trail alignment, t he Ravenswood Open
Space Preserve marsh at the easterly end of the alignment is part of San Francisco Bay as it is subject
to tidal action from the Bay. The 100-foot shoreline band would extend landward around the
Ravenswood marsh and therefore a small segment (approximately 80 linear feet) of the proposed
boardwalk would be constructed within the shoreline band of BCDC’s jurisdiction. The remainder of
the proposed trail alignment is outside of BCDC jurisdiction.3
City of East Palo Alto General Plan
Policies in the City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating biological resource impacts resulting from planned development within the City. These
policies include protection of important natural plant and animal communities and watershed areas.
City of Menlo Park General Plan
The City of Menlo Park has a goal to promote the preservation of open space lands for the protection
of natural/biological resources. The City’s General Plan Policy OSC1.2 (Habitat for Open Space and
Conservation Purposes) requires new development to preserve, protect, maintain and enhance water,
water-related areas, and plant and wildlife habitat for open space and conservation purposes.
Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan
The Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan includes natural resources goals and policies for new
development. Specific Plan Policy UTIL-5.1 requires that new development does not adversely
affect the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and Palo Alto Baylands Natural Preserve.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Resource Management Policies
MROSD established policies in December 2014 to protect and manage resources (e.g., plants,
animals, water, scenic, and cultural features) on MROSD lands. These resources also include large
predators which are a strong indicator of a healthy habitat. These predators include gray foxes and
coyotes, which are at the top of the food pyramid and depend on the availability of smaller animals.
3 Other portions of the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve are located northerly of the Dumbarton rail line and are
within BCDC jurisdiction. However, the shoreline band from that portion of the Preserve does not extend to the trail
alignment.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 42 September 2016
The project’s implementation of the following Resource Management Policies would help maintain
and promote healthy and diverse native wildlife populations:
Policy WM-1: Understand and maintain the diversity of native wildlife.
o Identify wildlife usage, movement patterns, and habitat features with high value to
wildlife.
o Consider and avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife when planning trails and other
facilities.
Policy WM-2: Protect, maintain and enhance habitat features that have particular value to
native wildlife.
o Evaluate the wildlife habitat value associated with human-made structures before
altering or removing them and avoid or mitigate any impacts.
Policy WM-3 Protect animal populations against the impact of human actions.
o Discourage human intrusion into sensitive wildlife habitats by appropriate placement
of facilities and trails.
The District’s Resource Management Policies also include policies and management measures to
protect sensitive plant species. The goal of these policies is to sustain and promote viable and
diverse native plant communities characteristic of the region. These policies include the following:
Policy VM-1: Maintain the diversity of native plant communities.
o Map and describe plant communities; analyze successional trends
and formulate site-specific vegetation management goals as part of
the Resource Management Plan for a preserve or geographic area.
o Identify appropriate areas for restoring lost or altered native plant
communities and restore them to a natural condition. This is often
best done by restoring natural processes and controlling invasive
plants, rather than by planting.
o Manage native grassland sties to encourage reestablishment and
perpetuation of California native grasses.
o Control invasive non-native plants.
Policy VM-2: Use native species occurring naturally on similar sites in ecological
restoration projects.
o Use seed and cuttings collected from the same geographical area
to revegetate or enhance degraded areas. One source of native
seed is topsoil or mulch taken from adjacent intact habitat and
applied thinly.
o Use fill, mulch, and seed mixtures that are as free as possible of
non-native plants in ecological restoration projects. Know where
such materials come from.
o Work with nurseries to grow native plants needed for ecological
restoration projects.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 43 September 2016
o Avoid seeding with rye grass (unless sterile), “Zorro” fescue,
Harding grass, or other non-native aggressive plants after fires to
control erosion.
o Use plant material that is biologically and visually appropriate to
the surrounding wild landscape and appropriate to the stage of
plant community development at the site.
o Encourage District tenants to use native plants for landscaping to
provide natural habitat.
Policy VM-3: Protect and enhance the habitats and populations of special status
plant species.
o Identify the location and condition of special status plants and
their habitats as part of the Resource Management Plan for a
preserve or geographical area.
o Conduct surveys for special status plants during the appropriate
season before significant site-specific development or any unusual
anticipated increase in use. Modify the project or use to avoid
impacting such plants.
o Project areas with special status species from human activities and
other negative impacts such as erosion. Examples of protective
measures include trail rerouting, signs, and fencing.
4.4.1.2 Existing Biological Resources
The proposed 3,000-foot long Bay Trail alignment (under options 1 and 2) would extend from
University Avenue in East Palo Alto to Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in the City of Menlo Park.
Field observations were completed in April 2011, December 2014, and September 2016 to assess
biological resources and to evaluate the extent of the wetlands within the project study area. To
assess the occurrence of special status plant and animal species, a search was completed on the
California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory and the CDFW’s Natural Diversity DataBase
RareFind (CNDDB) in 2014 and was re-searched in 2016.
4.4.1.2 Biological Habitats
Northern coastal salt marsh, ruderal grassland, and ruderal scrub are the biological habitats that were
observed on the project site and described in detail below. The distribution of these habitats within
the project area is shown in Figure 4.4-1.
Ruderal Grassland
Upland, ruderal (weedy) grassland occurs adjacent to the SFPUC service road and in higher elevation
areas south of the railroad. The weedy vegetation consists of non-native grasses including ripgut
brome, wild oat, canary grass, rattail fescue, and Italian ryegrass. Forbs, which are primarily non -
native grasses, are also common in the project area. Forbs on the project site include summer
mustard, wild mustard, iceplant, slender/Italian thistle, fennel, bristly ox -tongue, wild radish, and
DISTRIBUTION OF HABITAT TYPES IN PROJECT AREA FIGURE 4.4-1
LEGEND
Bridge over Wetlands
Preferred Alignment
Alternative Alignment
Trail Striped on SFPUC Service Road
Paved Trail on Grassy Uplands
Boardwalk-Style Raised Trail above Wetlands
Bridge over Wetlands
Existing SFPUC Service Road
Existing Bike Lane
Existing Multi-Use Bay Trail
Convert Multi-Use Bay Trail to Asphalt
Parcel Line (Approximate)
0 50’ 100’ 200’
Coastal Salt Marsh
Ruderal Grassland
Ruderal Scrub
over Wetlands
Trail on Grassy Uplands
walk-Style Raised Trail above Wetlands
over Wetlands
CALTRANS
DUMBAR
T
O
N
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
(
S
A
M
T
R
A
N
S
)
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
(EAST PALO ALTO)
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
HET
C
H
H
E
T
C
H
Y
P
I
P
E
L
I
N
E
R
.
O
.
W
.
(SF
P
U
C
)
RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
(MROSD)
CIT
Y
O
F
E
A
S
T
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
CIT
Y
O
F
M
E
N
L
O
P
A
R
K
SFPUC
STRUCTURESFPUC SFPUC
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 45 September 2016
salsify. One patch of creeping ryegrass, a California native grass, was observed nea r the pond east of
the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way.
The ruderal grassland serves as forage for small rodents, which attract predators such as raptors. The
grassland also provides forage for insect and seed eating birds. Bird species that commonly occur in
the project area include the European starling, mourning dove, Brewer’s blackbird, and the cliff
swallow. Additional wildlife species that commonly occur in these grasslands are the ground
squirrel, Botta’s pocket gopher, and black-tailed jackrabbit. The occurrence of mammals attracts
predators such as the coyote, gopher snake, and red-tailed hawk.
Ruderal Scrub
Ruderal scrub consists of weedy shrubs, small non-native trees, and herbaceous plants which occur
along the edges of the railroad and along the existing SFPUC service road. The weedy shrubs are
non-native and consist of evergreen landscape and olive shrubs. Common herbaceous plants that
occur are typical of those common in ruderal grasslands including wild oat, fennel, ripgut brome,
canary grass, and wild mustard. California poppy, a native annual plant, has also been observed in
the project area. Typical wildlife species found in this habitat include the California towhee, western
fence lizard, coyote, and white-crowned sparrow. The seeds of herbaceous plants and berries of
shrubs can serve as forage for wildlife. Wildlife may also utilize mixed scrub for hunting
opportunities or dense scrub as cover.
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
The northern coastal marsh is on a low elevation plain south of the railroad. This marsh is
recognized by state and federal agencies as sensitive habitat due to its significance to animal species
and San Francisco Bay’s ecosystem. Sensitive habitats are defined as habitats that support special
status species such as CDFW Species of Special Concern, provide important habitat values for
wildlife, represent areas of unusual or regionally restricted habitat types, and/or provide biological
diversity. CDFW classifies this marsh habitat as pickleweed mats (CDFW Code 52.215.09).
Pickleweed mats, which exist within the coastal marsh, are ranked by CDFW as “S3” and considered
a plant community of Special Concern.4 The S3 classification ranking indicates that the species is
highly imperiled in California. The marsh supports an intermittent population of pickleweed plants.
Other plant species at the marsh also include salt grass, marsh gumplant, alkali heath, California
cordgrass, and Mediterranean barley. An open water pond is located north of University Village and
small ponds and channels occur within the marsh.
The water from the marsh comes from subsurface flow (groundwater) and a tidal connection to the
south and east. Inundation of tides into the marsh occurs during the rainy season, which results in
saline soils and the occurrence of saltwater plant species in these soils.
4 California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form.
September 2010. Available at: <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp>. Accessed
July 13, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 46 September 2016
Nutrients and substrates for invertebrates are provided in small pools and channels within the marsh;
these invertebrates serve as forage for birds and small mammals. Typical native wildlife observed at
the marsh includes the great blue heron, snowy egret, black-necked stilt, willet, western sandpiper,
and the salt marsh harvest mouse.
Special Status and Native Wildlife Species
The CDFW’s CNDDB for the project site’s USGS quadrangle (Palo Alto) and surrounding
quadrangles was assessed in 2012, 2014, and 2016 to determine the potential occurrence of special
status wildlife species in the project area (refer to Tables 1 and 2 of the Biological Report in
Appendix A in this Initial Study). Reconnaissance site visits occurred in April 2011, July 2014,
December 2014, November 2015, and September 2016; however, no focused surveys for breeding
birds or other wildlife species were conducted. Sixteen species were listed in CDFW’s CNDDB’s
database as federal or state agency threatened or endangered species or were identified as state
species of special concern in the project area. Of the 16 special status wildlife species identified on
CNDBB for the project area, 12 of these species (e.g., western pond turtle, San Francisco garter
snake, and the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat) have no potential to occur on the project site due
to lack of suitable habitat (e.g., lack of freshwater or woodland habitat).
Breeding habitat for snowy plover is absent within the project site, as they primarily breed on salt
flats or other bare areas. However, snowy plover has been known to breed in sites north of the
project site (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, 2014).
Breeding habitat for least tern and saltmarsh common yellowthroat is also absent within the project
site. California least tern nests in coasts and bay margins with sandy beach, alkali flat, and open bare
ground. There is no known nesting habitat for least tern within 1.2 miles of the project site (CDFW,
2016). Saltmarsh common yellowthroat nests in dense vegetation (cattails, rushes) at water’s edge of
freshwater ponds, estuaries, and creeks. The closest known nesting habitat for saltmarsh common
yellowthroat is greater than 1.2 miles southeast of the project site.
The project area has marginal habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse (listed as endangered by
federal and California agencies), which occurs within the project area as well as in the adjacent
portions of Ravenswood marsh to the north and south (H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2006, CNDDB
2016), and the salt-marsh wandering shrew (a California Species of Concern), which occurs within a
salt marsh within one mile of the project area. Both species may be present in the salt marsh in low
numbers. The project area does not provide breeding habitat for the California Ridgway’s rail
(federal- and California-listed endangered species)5 or the California black rail (California-listed
threatened species); however, they both may occasionally forage in the project area. None of the
above listed individuals were observed during the site visits in April 2011, July 2014, December
2014, November 2015, and September 2016.
Gray foxes are native and also known to occur in the project area. Although the species is not
considered a designated special status wildlife, the gray fox is a predator and is essential to the food
5 California Ridgway’s rail is formerly known as California clapper rail.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 47 September 2016
chain on MROSD lands. The species is monitored by MROSD and Resource Management Policies
are in place to protect the gray fox and other native predators in the project area.
Special Status Plant Species
The project area was evaluated for special status plant species listed by either the federal or state
resource agencies and those identified as rare by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Based
on a search of the CNPS and CNDDB inventories, the project area has limited resources to support
many special status species. Sixteen species were listed on these inventories as having the potential
to occur in the project vicinity (within five miles of the project site). Specialized habitats and
substrates that support most of the listed special status plant species do not occur within the project
area. Additionally, the weedy condition of the upland grassland limits the potential for special status
species to occur within the project area. Based on the review of the database search and the project
site’s conditions, only three species have the potential to occur within the project site: Congdon’s
tarplant, Hoover’s button-celery, and caper-fruited tropidocarpum. Some sections of the project area,
such as areas along the salt marsh edge or lower elevation areas within the grasslands may provide
suitable habitat. The Congdon’s tarplant has been recorded (in the CNDBB) to have occurred south
of the railroad tracks. During a November 2015 biological survey completed by Biotic Resources
Group, a patch of five Congdon’s tarplants were observed on-site, just south of the open water pond.
Subsequent site visits in September 2016 failed to detect any Congdon tarplants. No other special
status plant species were observed during the April 2011, December 2014, or September 2016
surveys.6
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan
The project site is not subject to an approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.
4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
6 The Congdon’s tarplant may have been present during a MROSD July 2014 visit. However, the presence of the
plant was not identified or confirmed during the April 2011 or December 2014 biological field surveys; species was
observed in November 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 48 September 2016
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or 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 or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
1,2,15
2) 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?
1,2,15
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected 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?
1,2,15
4) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
1,2,15
5) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
1,6,15
6) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
1,2
4.4.2.1 Biological Resources Impacts
Long-term impacts associated with increased public access on nesting bird and salt marsh harvest
mouse habitat after the trail is built are not expected to be greater than impacts created by the existing
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 49 September 2016
Bay Trail in Ravenswood OSP or existing unauthorized use of the site. Trail design, enforcement of
District regulations (trash control and hourly use restrictions), and an increased presence of
legitimate use are anticipated to reduce impacts from existing unauthorized use.
The construction of a trail on the project site would increase public access and could potentially
increase trash left by trail users. Policy is to “pack in and pack out”, so that all visitors pack out their
trash. Policy and regulations are enforced and typically compliance is high. If monitoring shows
otherwise, the District would consider additional measures as necessary including increase d patrol or
the addition of a self-closing garbage can.
Impacts to Special Status Mammal Species
The salt marsh harvest mouse (state and federally listed endangered species) occurs within the
project area (H.T. Harvey & Assoc. 2006, CNDDB 2016) as well as in adjacent Ravenswood marsh
to the north and south, and the salt-marsh wandering shrew (California Species of Concern) has been
documented within one mile of the project area (CNDDB 2016). Since both species are likely to
occur in low numbers (due to marginal habitat), it is possible that activities including the use and
transportation of equipment and construction may result in direct mortality and/or noise disturbance
to both species within the northern coastal salt marsh and ruderal grassland or scrub. The possible
indirect effects to both species include harassment to individuals due to relocation prior to
construction, and both temporary and permanent loss of habitat. Total temporary impacts to salt-
marsh harvest mouse and salt-marsh wandering shrew habitat are estimated to include approximately
12,500 to 14,500 square feet of coastal salt marsh habitat. Permanent impacts to potential salt marsh
harvest mouse and the salt-marsh wandering shrew habitat are estimated to include 300 to 2,000
square feet of coastal salt marsh habitat.
Impact BIO-1: Project development could result in significant impacts to federally- and state-
listed endangered salt marsh harvest mouse and the salt-marsh wandering shrew
(California Species of Concern) individuals and their habitat.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the salt marsh harvest mouse and
the salt marsh wandering shrew impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring the project does
not have a substantial adverse effect on either of these protected species. These measures are
consistent with the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan FEIR mitigation measures BIO-2a and
BIO-2b.
MM BIO-1.1: The project proponent shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW through the
Section 7 process for the 404 permit from the USACE, or the Section 10 process,
and obtain all necessary approvals for implementing measures to protect these
species.
MM BIO-1.2: A contractor education program shall be developed to educate all construction
personnel of the potential presence of sensitive, endangered, or threatened wildlife
species before they begin any work on the job site. Personnel shall be notified of
the species’ sensitivity to human activities, the legal protection afforded to these
species, the penalties for violating these legal protections, their responsibilities,
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 50 September 2016
applicable mitigation measures, and the roles and authority of the monitoring
biologists.
MM BIO-1.3: Prior to any project construction activities, wildlife exclusion fencing that prevents
the entry of salt-marsh harvest mouse and salt-marsh wandering shrew shall be
installed around all work areas adjacent to suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse
habitat (i.e., coastal salt marsh with pickleweed and adjacent upland escape
habitat). The final design and placement of the wildlife exclusion fencing shall be
developed in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW.
MM BIO-1.4: A qualified biologist shall design and oversee installation of all areas within the
wildlife exclusion zones that support suitable pickleweed or upland escape habitat.
If any salt-marsh harvest mouse or salt-marsh wandering shrew are captured
within the enclosed areas, they shall be relocated by qualified personnel according
to the requirements of USFWS and CDFW. All captured mice and shrews shall be
relocated to the nearest appropriate habitat outside the exclusion fencing. The
wildlife exclusion fencing shall be maintained as long as construction-related
activities are conducted adjacent to suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse and salt-
marsh wandering shrew habitat (including the habitat below the raised boardwalk).
The contractor shall inspect the fence weekly to ensure its integrity. The integrity
of the fence shall be verified by a qualified biological monitor. The USFWS and
CDFW may revise the scheduling and frequency of the monitoring.
MM BIO-1.5: All work associated with the boardwalk (i.e., anchor piers and wood decking) shall
be done by hand crews, using hand tools, including hand-held drills and other
equipment. Cranes would then be required to place the bridge segments on their
supports/abutments.
MM BIO-1.6: Upon the completion of construction, any upland areas used for stockpiling of
spoils and/or construction equipment and supplies shall be restored in accordance
with an approved erosion control plan. Surface grade shall be restored and
revegetated with an erosion control seed mix comprised of appropriat e native
herbaceous plant species.
MM BIO-1.7: Permanent impacts on suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse or salt-marsh wandering
shrew breeding habitat and upland habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio of one
square foot restored/enhanced for each square foot lost (1:1). Since only a small
area of coastal salt marsh shall be permanently affected by this project
(approximately 300-2,000 square feet), mitigation shall consist of enhancement of
a minimum of 300-2,000 square feet of nearby suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse
habitat (potentially on other lands owned by MROSD, SFPUC, or other public
agencies), subject to the approval of the USFWS and CDFW. Restoration shall
consist of installing pickleweed plants in areas lacking vegetation, removing
invasive vegetation in saltmarsh or nearby uplands, or
decompacting/decommissioning old roads or social trails to meet the 1:1 ratio.
Impacts to upland habitat shall be mitigated by planting/enhancing other upland
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 51 September 2016
areas at a minimum of the 1:1 ratio (potentially on other lands owned by MROSD,
SFPUC or other public agencies); tasks may include removal/control of invasive,
non-native plant species or other measures as identified by CDFW and USFWS.
MM BIO-1.8: Temporary impacts to suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse and salt-marsh wandering
shrew habitats shall be rehabilitated on-site, as stated in measure MM BIO-1.6,
and are subject to the approval of the USFWS and CDFW.
Impacts to Special Status Bird Species
The project site provides potential foraging habitat for the following shorebirds: the California
Ridgway’s rail (state and federally listed endangered species) and the California black rail
(California-listed threatened species). The site does not contain suitable nesting habitat for nesting
by these bird species due to the intermittent coverage of pickleweed and sparse cover of cordgrass.
Both species, however, could occur at the project site in low numbers, mainly for foraging or resting.
It is unlikely that these species would be injured or killed by equipment during construction due to
their ability to fly. Indirect impacts on these species, however, could include harassment of
individuals by noise disturbance or causing them to flush during construction.
Impact BIO-2: Project construction could result in short-term significant impacts to federally- and
state-listed endangered California Ridgway’s rail and California black rail
individuals.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the California Ridgway’s rail and
California black rail impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring the project does not have a
substantial adverse effect on these state-listed endangered species. These measures are consistent
with the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan FEIR mitigation measure BIO-3a.
MM BIO-2.1: The project proponent shall consult with the USFWS through the Section 7
process for the 404 permit from the USACE, and obtain all necessary approvals
for work affecting protected species.
MM BIO-2.2: A contractor education program shall be developed, with specific information for
all construction personnel working in the vicinity of potential habitat for special -
status shorebirds.
MM BIO-2.3: Within 90 days before land-clearing operations begin, a qualified ornithologist
shall perform a habitat assessment to determine if suitable nesting habitat for any
of these species is present within 100 feet of construction limits. If no suitable
nesting habitat is found, no further actions would be warranted.
MM BIO-2.4: If suitable breeding habitat occurs within 100 feet of the limits of operations, no
more than 15 days before land-clearing operations begin, the ornithologist shall
complete focused surveys to determine whether special-status shorebirds have
occupied that habitat. The surveys shall typically occur during breeding season,
which extends from February 1 to August 31 for California Ridgway’s rail, and
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 52 September 2016
from March 15 to July 15 for California black rail. If construction does not occur
during the breeding season for California Ridgway’s rail or California black rail,
pre-construction surveys for these birds would not be required. If no special status
shorebirds are present, construction may proceed with no adverse effect and no
further actions warranted.
MM BIO-2.5: If special-status shorebirds are present, the project proponent shall consult with the
USFWS and CDFW regarding the implementation of appropriate protective
measures. Measures shall generally include establishing a “no-work” buffer zone
in the vicinity of active occupied nests, with the size of the buffer to be determined
by the ornithologist in consultation with USFWS and CDFW. All buffer zones
shall be designated on construction drawings and delineated in the field by orange
construction fencing or a similar visual barrier to equipment operators and
personnel. The buffer zone barrier shall be monitored and maintained until the
end of the breeding season and as approved by a qualified biologist.
MM BIO-2.6: Encroachment of construction activities within a designated buffer zone around
occupied nests may occur only after consultation with and concurrence by USFWS
and CDFW and with nest monitoring and restrictions on the type of operations
(e.g., limits on noise, distance to the nest) to ensure the project does not have a
substantial adverse effect on nesting bird.
Impacts to Movement of Native Wildlife Species
MROSD’s Resource Management Policies include policies that protect common predator species on
its open space lands. As an example, the gray fox is a common native predator species that has been
identified in the project area. The proposed trail project would not significantly impact the gray fox
or any other native predators in the area because it would not create any substantive barriers to their
movement and any loss of habitat would be minimal. Impacts have been further minimized by the
implementation of MROSD Resource Management Policy WM-3, which influenced the project
design to discourage human intrusion into sensitive wildlife habitats by appropriate placement of the
trail. Any proposed fencing separating the public trail and SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot should
have provisions in the fence design to eliminate barriers for wildlife movement.
Impacts to Nesting/Migratory Birds
The project would not interfere substantially with movement of or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites for native or migratory wildlife. There is a possibility, however, for nesting birds,
including raptors, to be present in on-site trees prior to project construction. Additionally, there are
off-site electrical towers that could be utilized as perching sites by falcons and various raptor species.
Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the CDFW Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. Construction noise disturbance during the breeding
season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or could otherwise lead to nest
abandonment. Nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort c aused by disturbance are
considered a “take” by the CDFW and, therefore, would constitute a significant impact.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 53 September 2016
Impact BIO-3: The project could result in significant impacts to nesting birds if present on-site
prior to or during project construction.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the nesting bird impacts to a less
than significant level by ensuring the project does not have a substantial adverse effect on nesting birds.
These measures are consistent with the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan FEIR mitigation
measure BIO-3a.
MM BIO-3.1: Construction, including vegetation removal, during the active nesting season for
breeding birds (February 1 – August 31) shall be avoided as much as feasible in
areas that are not currently developed. If construction during the breeding season
cannot be avoided, pre-construction breeding bird surveys within 0.25 miles of
active construction shall be completed within 14 days prior to ground disturbance
to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and/or young of ground-nesting birds.
Surveys can be used to detect the nests of special status as well as non-special
status birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A buffer zone where
no construction would be allowed shall be established around any active nests of
any avian species found in or immediately adjacent to the project area until a
qualified ornithologist has determined that all young have fledged. The size of the
exclusion zones may depend on species, location, and placement of nest, and shall
be determined by a qualified ornithologist and, if necessary, the USFWS and the
CDFW.
Impacts to Special Status Plant Species
No special status plant species listed by CDFW, USFWS, or local plans were identified in the project
area during the April 2011, December 2014, or September 2016 biological field surveys. Five
Congdon’s tarplants were, however, observed during a November 2015 survey of the project site; the
plants were found south of the open water pond. No other special status plant species have been
documented in the project area. If occurrences of this species are discovered within the proposed
trail’s construction alignment, disturbance to the species and its habitat would occur.
Impact BIO-4: If the Congdon’s tarplant (special status plant species) is discovered within the
proposed trail alignment, construction within this alignment could significantly
impact this species.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would avoid or minimize impacts to the
Congdon’s tarplant by ensuring the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the plant:
MM BIO-4.1: A pre-construction survey shall be completed during the blooming period of the
tarplant by a qualified biologist; the typical blooming period is from June through
October. Occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant shall be documented by a global
positioning system (GPS) and demarcated on project plans and in the field. A
CNDDB field survey form shall be completed and submitted to CDFW. If the
Congdon’s tarplant is discovered within the proposed trail alignment, the trail shall
be re-routed to avoid the plant. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified MROSD
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 54 September 2016
personnel shall collect available seeds from the plants in the impact area. MROSD
shall develop and implement a revegetation program wherein the collected seed
would be distributed into suitable habitat within the project vicinity to achieve no
net loss of tarplant individuals. The success of the revegetation program shall be
monitored yearly for a period of three years. Monitoring shall consist of a yearly
census of Congdon’s tarplant plants. The revegetation program shall be deemed
successful if there is no net loss of tarplant individuals each year for three years.
If this performance standard is not met in any of the monitoring years, MROSD
will implement remedial revegetation actions, such as re-seeding, weeding, or
other actions, as determined by a qualified restoration ecologist, until performance
standards are met.
MM BIO-4.2: If the Congdon’s tarplant is found adjacent to the construction area, prior to
construction, temporary construction fencing shall be installed to provide a buffer
around the plant under the supervision of a qualified biologist or biological
monitor along the edge of construction area to prevent any inadvertent equipment
entry or other site disturbance into areas that support Congdon’s tarplant. A
contractor education program shall be developed to educate all construction
personnel of the potential presence of sensitive, endangered or threatened plant
species before they begin any work on the job site. Personnel shall be notified of
the species’ sensitivity to human activities, the legal protection afforded to these
species, the penalties for violating these legal protections, their responsibilities,
applicable mitigation measures, and the roles and authority of the monitoring
biologists.
Impacts to Sensitive Habitats from the Proposed Alignments
Two alignment options for the proposed trail are under consideration. The first option for the
proposed trail alignment would use the SFPUC service road from University Avenue for
approximately 1,400 linear feet (with a new gravel shoulder along the north side), after which the
trail would traverse approximately 525 linear feet of upland grassland, connect to a 80-120 foot
single-span bridge (over wetlands and open water pond), become a paved trail through upland
grassland for 400 feet, then transition to an approximately 400 foot long raised boardwalk over the
coastal marsh to its terminus with the existing Bay Trail within MROSD’s Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve. The second option for the proposed alignment is similar but the proposed trail alignment
would begin with a bridge over the Caltrans wetland. Then the trail would be located on the SFPUC
service road from University Avenue for approximately 1,040 linear feet and would traverse
approximately 775 linear feet of upland grassland and include the bridge over the pond and raised
boardwalk over the coastal salt marsh (as per the preferred alignment).
Both options for the trail alignment would result in permanent and temporary impacts to the coastal
salt marsh. Impacts would occur during construction of the raised boardwalk and the bridges (refer
to the description of first and second options in the paragraphs below). This would occur from
installing the wood piles or helical anchor piers, attaching the boardwalk structure to the piers and
bridge construction. Vegetation in and adjacent to the structures could be impacted where hand crew
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 55 September 2016
work is allowed and cranes will lower the structures into place; the vegetation within these areas,
however, is expected to naturally recover after the next growing season.
For both alignments, construction of the paved trail through the central grassy area may require
temporary construction access across a small wetland area to reach the trail construction area (if an
upland access route across private property from Fordham Street within University Village is not
available). Wetland construction matting is proposed to cover any wetland areas needed for the
temporary access to minimize trampling of vegetation. The matting is expected to only be in place
for no more than two days so the temporary impact to the marsh vegetation would not result in a
significant impact to wetland or riparian habitat.
The pier foundations for the boardwalk would be installed by hand within marsh areas, thus avoiding
large equipment use within sensitive habitats. The 80- to 120-foot long bridge (proposed for Option
1 and 2 alignments) would span the marsh and open water pond to minimize impacts to the wetland.
The 230-foot bridge over the Caltrans wetland (proposed for the Option 2 trail alignment) would be
one long span or multiple spans supported on piers within the wetlands. If multiple spans are
required, piers would be positioned outside wetland locations to the extent possible.
For Option 1 and 2 alignments, temporary impacts to the coastal marsh will range from 12,500 -
14,500 square feet. Shading of the marsh from the raised boardwalk will range from 7,500- 9,500
square feet for Option 1 and 10,000-12,000 square feet for Option 2.
First Option for the Proposed Alignment
The first option for the trail alignment includes a single span bridge and a raised boardwalk over the
sensitive habitat areas with the project area. The proposed bridge would span the seasonal pond and
marsh in the central portion of the project area. A raised boardwalk, built approximately three to
eight feet above the marsh, is also proposed to span the larger low-elevation marsh in the easternmost
portion of the SFPUC and MROSD parcels at the eastern portion of the project area. The boardwalk
would be supported by wood piles or helical anchor supports that would be hand-screwed into the
ground surface. Permanent impacts to the coastal salt marsh would be limited to the footprint of the
supporting shafts and possible shading of marsh vegetation from the elevated boardwalk. The helix
would be underground and, therefore, no permanent impact to the coastal salt marsh is expected from
the helix. Since the boardwalk would be raised approximately three to eight feet above the marsh,
only a limited area under the boardwalk would be shaded, and the boardwalk would not significantly
preclude growth of marsh vegetation. In addition, small areas within the marsh in this area are
currently devoid of vegetation or support open water channels; these areas would not be impacted by
the shade cast from the raised boardwalk. The trail alignment includes a 4-foot wide gravel shoulder
along the north side of the SFPUC access road. Construction of the raised boardwalk and shoulder
along the SFPUC road will permanently impact 300-2,000 square feet of coastal marsh.
Second Option for the Proposed Alignment
The second option for the alignment proposes a bridge to span the marsh wetland on the Caltrans
property that is immediately east of University Avenue and at the western edge project area. Piers
would be required to support the bridge and would be located in the wetland. The remainder of the
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 56 September 2016
trail will traverse the same alignments as described for the first option using the same construction
methods, and includes a single span bridge and a raised boardwalk over the sensitive habitat areas
within the project area. The proposed bridge would span the seasonal pond and marsh in the central
portion of the project area. A raised boardwalk three to eight feet above the marsh, is also proposed
to span the larger low-elevation marsh in the easternmost portion of the SFPUC and MROSD parcels
at the eastern portion of the project area. Construction of the raised boardwalk will be the same as
described for the preferred alignment. As with the first option for the trail alignment, a raised
boardwalk, built approximately three to eight feet above the marsh, is also proposed to span the
larger low-elevation marsh in the easternmost portion of the project area . A four-foot wide gravel
shoulder will be added to the north side of the SFPUC Service road. This option will permanently
impact 300-2,000 square feet of coastal marsh
Measures to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for coastal salt marsh impacts from construction, to
ensure the project will not have substantial adverse effect on wetland or riparian habitat , and thus
reduce any impact to a less than significant level for both options are outlined below in MM BIO 5.1-
5.6.
Impact BIO-5: Construction of the proposed trail with bridge/boardwalk structures would result in
temporary and permanent impacts to northern coastal salt marsh, a sensitive
natural community.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would avoid or minimize impacts to the
northern coastal salt marsh by ensuring the project does not have a substantial adverse effect on
wetland or riparian habitat. A mitigation measure also provided habitat compensation of permanent
impacts to the coastal marsh. These measures are consistent with the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD
Specific Plan FEIR mitigation measure BIO-5.
MM BIO-5.1: A contractor education program shall be developed to educate all construction
personnel of measures to prevent indirect impacts to wetlands and water resources.
MM BIO-5.2: Northern coastal salt marsh vegetation adjacent to the construction work areas
shall be protected from inadvertent construction impacts by the placement of
construction mesh fencing. The project applicant shall ensure that all fencing is in
place prior to construction operations and/or grading. Fencing installation will be
completed under the guidance of a qualified biologist.
MM BIO-5.3: The following erosion control measures shall be implemented during and
following construction to avoid deposition of sediment into adjacent coastal salt
marsh and watercourses:
The project applicant shall install and maintain perimeter silt fencing or
hay bales and implement post-construction erosion control seeding.
The project applicant shall revegetate all disturbed [upland] areas with
native plant species immediately after site preparation and grading.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 57 September 2016
The project applicant shall use certified weed-free hay and seed.
MM BIO-5.4: Placement of temporary (up to two days) matting in the coastal salt marsh (for
temporary construction access to the grassland area), if an upland alternative is not
available may be subject to permitting under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean
Water Act and Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code. The project applicant
shall obtain all permits and certifications prior to construction, if required.
MM BIO-5.5: Placement of the bridge abutments and pile or helical anchor foundations (shafts
and helixes) within the coastal salt marsh and construction of the four foot wide
gravel shoulder along the north side of the SFPUC Service Road may be subject to
permitting under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1601
of the Fish and Game Code. The project applicant shall obtain all permits and
certifications prior to construction and adhere to all permit requirements, if so
required by regulatory agencies.
MM BIO-5.6: The project proponent shall monitor the recovery of all coastal salt marsh areas
temporarily affected by trail construction and/or equipment/worker access one
year after boardwalk and bridge construction and construction access to the
grassland area (if used). If native coastal salt marsh vegetation has not naturally
recovered within the disturbed area and provided at least 30 percent native plant
cover, the project proponent shall implement remedial seeding of the disturbed
areas to induce marsh restoration. Seed from locally collected native coastal salt
marsh plant species shall be used for the restoration work. The success of the
recovery/revegetation program shall be monitored yearly for a period of three
years. Monitoring shall consist of a yearly survey of plant cover within the
affected areas. The revegetation program shall be deemed successful if there is a
minimum of 30% native plant cover each year for three years. If this performance
standard is not met in any of the monitoring years, MROSD will implement
remedial revegetation actions, such as re-seeding, weeding, or other actions, as
determined by a qualified restoration ecologist, until performance standards are
met.
MM BIO-5.7: The project proponent shall implement a coastal marsh restoration/revegetation
program to provide compensation for permanent impacts to the coastal marsh. The
program shall restore/revegetate coastal marsh at a 1:1 impact to restoration ratio.
Suitable low-elevation areas within the project area shall be selected for marsh
restoration and these areas shall be revegetated with native coastal marsh plant
species. Seed from locally collected native coastal salt marsh plant species shall
be used for the restoration work. The success of the restoration program shall be
monitored yearly for a period of 3 years. Monitoring shall consist of a yearly
survey of plant cover within the restored areas. The revegetation program shall be
deemed successful if there is a minimum of 30% native plant cover each year for 3
years. If this performance standard is not met in any of the monitoring years,
MROSD will implement remedial revegetation actions, such as re -seeding,
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 58 September 2016
weeding, or other actions, as determined by a qualified restoration ecologist, until
performance standards are met.
The proposed project would not impact native or migratory fish corridors, since there is no suitable
habitat on the site for these species. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the
project would not significantly impact the migratory corridors for California Ridgway rail, California
black rail, salt-marsh harvest mouse, salt-marsh wandering shrew, or gray fox. There are no native
wildlife nurseries on the project site.
Impacts Related to Conflicts with Local Policies Protecting Biological Resources
The Cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto have policies that are designed to protect trees that are
of a designated minimum size (or larger), commonly referred to as “ordinance-sized” trees. If such
trees need to be removed, a permit is required and tree replacement is typically mandated.
Based on the proposed project design, removal of ordinance-sized trees is not anticipated to be
required. Should it subsequently be determined that an ordinance-sized tree must be removed,
compliance with local requirements, including replacement mandates, shall occur. The only
plantings that would occur within SFPUC ROW would be the seeding of disturbed upland areas with
native grass seed or any revegetation required by permit requirements or mitigation, consistent with
the SFPUC Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, as previously described in
Section 4.4.1.1 of this Initial Study.
Consistency with Habitat Plans
As mentioned above, the project site is not subject to an approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP),
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan, therefore, no impact would occur.
4.4.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce all biological resource impacts to a
less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 59 September 2016
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based on the Cultural Resources Study completed by Holman &
Associates in May 2011. This study is attached to the Initial Study as Appendix B.
4.5.1 Setting
4.5.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, (NHPA) sets forth national policy and
procedures regarding historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects
included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of NHPA
requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on such properties and
to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment on those
undertakings, following regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36
CFR 800).
California Register of Historic Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) establishes a list of properties that are to be
protected from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1). A historical resource may be listed
in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2) it is
associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past; 3) it embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an
important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; 4) it has yielded or is likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history.
The CRHR includes properties that are listed or have been formally determined to be eligible for
listing in the NRHP, State Historical Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest. Historical
Landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have
anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious,
experimental, or other value. Other resources require nomination for inclusion in the CRHR. These
may include resources contributing to the significance of a local historic district, individual historical
resources, historical resources identified in historic resource surveys conducted in accordance with
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) procedures, historic resources or districts designated
under a local ordinance consistent with the California Historic Resources Commission’s procedures,
and local landmarks or historic properties designated under local ordinance.
CEQA Regulations Regarding Human Remains
Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an
unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on nonfederal land. These procedures are
outlined in PRC Sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance,
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 60 September 2016
vandalism, and inadvertent destruction, establish procedures to be implemented if Native American
skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, and establish the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such
remains.
California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act
The California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act applies to both State and
private lands. The Act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation
activity cease and the county coroner be notified. If the remains are of a Native American, the
coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to
the Native American remains. The Act stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for
treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regulates the procedure to be followed in the event
of human remains discovery. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in the event of
human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are determined
to be Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC. The NAHC is responsible for
contacting the most likely Native American descendent, who would consult with the local agency
regarding how to proceed with the remains. According to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines,
all human remains are considered a significant resource.
City of East Palo Alto General Plan
The City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan consists of policies which have a goal to preserve
historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. Policy 1.1 requires new development to
protect areas of important archaeological and paleontological resources.
Ravenswood /4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
The Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan includes cultural resources goals and policies to
maintain and conserve historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. Applicable Specific
Plan cultural resource policies include:
Policy CUL-1.1: Ensure that City, State, and Federal histori c preservation laws, regulations,
and codes are implemented, including State laws related to archaeological resources, to
ensure the adequate protection of historic and prehistoric resources.
Policy CUL-1.3: Require preparation of a project-specific Archaeological Resources
Assessment (ARA) by a professional Archaeologist for any construction that will impact
native soil in the parts of the Plan Area known to be archaeologically sensitive, that are
within the 200-foot buffer of known historic and prehistoric resources, as recorded on the
supplemental figure Archaeological Sensitivity Zones on file with the City.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 61 September 2016
Policy CUL-1.4: Recognize that Native American human remains may be encountered at
unexpected locations and impose a requirement on all development permits and tentative
subdivision maps that upon their discovery during construction, development activity will
cease until professional archaeological examination confirms that the burial is human. If the
remains are determined to be Native American, applicable State laws shall be implemented.
A professional Archaeologist with expertise in human remains must be retained to review,
identify, and evaluate the discovery. The County Coroner and Native American Heritage
Commission must be notified and the remains treated in accordance with State law.
City of Menlo Park General Plan
The City of Menlo Park’s General Plan includes policies that protect and enhance cultural resources.
Applicable cultural resource policies include:
Policy OSC3.1: Prehistoric or Historic Cultural Resources Investigation and Preservation.
Preserve historical and cultural resources to the maximum extent practical.
Policy OSC3.2: Prehistoric or Historic Cultural Resources Protection. Require significant
historic or prehistoric artifacts be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist or
historian for appropriate protection and preservation, and to ensure compliance with local,
State and Federal regulations.
Policy OSC3.3: Archaeological or Paleontological Resources Protection. Protect prehistoric
or historic cultural resources either on site or through appropriate documentation as a
condition of removal. Require that when a development project has sufficient flexibility,
avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the primary mitigation measure, unless
the City identifies superior mitigation. If resources are documented, undertake coordination
with descendants and/or stakeholder groups, as warranted.
Policy OSC3.4: Prehistoric or Historic Cultural Resources Found During Construction.
Require that if cultural resources, including archaeological or paleontological resources, are
uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction shall stop until
appropriate mitigation is implemented.
4.5.1.2 Existing Archaeological and Historic Resources
Archaeological Resources
The proposed project area consists of a SFPUC service road, an upland grassy area, and a marsh area.
According to historic photographs and records, the entire project area was tidal marsh until the mid-
twentieth century, when it was filled to construct housing. In addition, a portion of the project area
that is now the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve was formerly used as a salt evaporation pond. In
2000, the levees surrounding the former salt pond were breached and tidal flow restored so that it
could be naturally converted to tidal marsh habitat.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 62 September 2016
An archaeological literature review at the Northwest Information Center was completed on May 2,
2011 to obtain reports of archaeological surveys, and records of historic and prehistoric sites in and
around the project area. In addition, the SFPUC Hetch Hetchy Bay Tunnel Pipeline Project, the City
of East Palo Alto’s Cooley Landing Project, and the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
cultural studies were reviewed.
As mentioned above, the entire project site was tidal marsh well into the mid -20th century. The
project area likely was too wet to have supported any type of settlement over the past 3,000 years. If
cultural resources existed there in the past, they would date back to the period 4,000 to 6,000 years
ago when the bay began to rise.
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the project site study area. Further,
according to the SFPUC, no buried archaeological resources have been reported as part of the recent
excavation for the Hetch Hetchy Bay Tunnel Pipeline Project.
Based on the above information, while the potential for the proposed project to impact buried
archaeological resources cannot be ruled out, the likelihood is considered low.
Historical Resources
According to the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan EIR, the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct Bay
Division Bay Pipeline No. 1 and 2 Alignment, which crosses through the project site, is a historic
resource that is eligible for the NRHP and the CRHR. The Dumbarton Railroad Corridor, which is
adjacent to the proposed trail alignment, is eligible for the NRHP.
4.5.1.3 Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments
found in geologic strata. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate foss ils such as snails,
clam and oyster shells, sponges and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish and sea lion bones.
Fossil vertebrate land animals may include bones of reptiles, birds, and mammals. Paleontological
resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks. Paleontological sites are
those areas that show evidence of pre-human activity. The age and abundance of fossils depends on
the topography and geological formations of the region of interest. Most fossils in the Peninsula and
San Francisco Regions are found along the immediate Pacific Ocean coastline, and in location s
within the outcropping marine units in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
A paleontological sensitivity rating is derived from fossil data from the entire geologic unit, not just
from a specific survey area. A threefold classification of sensitivity, based on the high, low and
undetermined potential for paleontological resources, is used in California and has been
recommended by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Geologic units of Holocene age are
generally not considered sensitive for paleontological resources because biological remains younger
than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils. These sediments have low potential to yield
fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 63 September 2016
The project area includes artificial fill, Holocene age bay mud, and floodplain and basin deposits.
According to the online database maintained by the Museum of Paleontology at the University of
California at Berkeley, there are no records of known fossils sites located within the project area.
The potential for important paleontological resources from these soil deposits is limited due to their
young age; most fossil plant and animal remains in these deposits are of existing species. The areas
underlain by artificial fill, bay mud and deposits are, therefore, classified as a low sensitivity. In
addition, there are no nearby paleontological sites that are within the same geologic unit that the
project alignment would cross.7
4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
1,2,17
2) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource as defined in
§15064.5?
1,2,17
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site, or unique geologic feature?
1,2,17
4) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
1,2,17
4.5.2.1 Cultural Resources Impacts
Historic Resources
As described above, there are two potentially eligible historic resources within or near the project
area, namely the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. For the following
reasons, the construction of a trail would not alter or degrade these historic resources:
The Hetch Hetchy Bay Division Pipeline extends approximately 21 miles from Fremont to
Redwood City and the small crossing for the trail would have no impact on its significance
related to its association with the Hetch Hetchy water system from 1924 to 1936.
7 SFPUC. Bay Division Pipeline Reliability Upgrade Project. Alameda and San Mateo Counties. Final
Environmental Impact Report. Volume 1, Chapter 1 through 4, Section 4.7. July 2009.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 64 September 2016
The Dumbarton Railroad Corridor is outside the project site and the trail construction would
not affect the integrity of the district’s location, setting, and association with the Southern
Pacific Railroad system.
Further, there are no historic buildings or structures within the project area that would require
removal or modification under the proposed project.
Based on this assessment, the proposed trail project would not result in any adverse impacts to
historic resources.
Archaeological Resources
Construction of the proposed trail should have no effect on buried prehistoric archaeological
resources, as long as work occurs in historically filled areas or in those areas which are still at the
original bay marsh elevations. Any prehistoric archaeological deposits (including human remains
that may be interred outside of a cemetery) in these areas would be deep enough to be protected from
construction of the proposed trail. However, although the likelihood for the project to impact buried
archaeological resources is considered low, since the presence of a previously-undiscovered site
cannot be ruled out and since the exact soil conditions and depth required for the boardwalk piers
won’t be determined until final design, it is not possible to confirm at this time that archaeological
resources would not be impacted during construction.
Impact CUL-1: Implementation of the project could result in the destruction of unknown
subsurface archaeological resources, including human remains that may be
interred outside of a cemetery.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce archaeological resources impacts
to a less than significant level. These measures are consistent with the Ravenswood/4 Corners
Specific Plan policies CUL-1.1, CUL-1.3, and CUL-1.4.
MM CUL-1.1: At the time structural and geotechnical design is completed, a professional
archaeologist shall be retained to review the soil data to determine if monitoring is
required to avoid cultural resources impacts. If monitoring is required, a
professional archaeologist shall oversee the excavation for boardwalk piers.
MM CUL-1.2: Should any archaeological indicators be exposed or discovered during either site
preparation or subsurface construction activities, all construction work within a
50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped until the professional archaeologist has
an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate
mitigation as determined necessary to protect the resource. The City of East Palo
Alto Planning Manager and City of East Palo Alto Engineer shall be notified and
if the find is within the City of Menlo Park, the City of Menlo Park’s Community
Development Director shall also be notified.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 65 September 2016
MM CUL-1.3: In the event that Native American human remains or funerary objects are
discovered, the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code shall be
followed. Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code states:
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location
other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains until the San Mateo County Coroner has determined, in
accordance with Chapter 10 of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the
Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section
27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law
concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and
the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human
remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his
or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of
the Public Resources Code.
Paleontological Resources
The project area includes artificial fill and Holocene bay mud soil deposits, which are classified as
having a low paleontological sensitivity. In addition, there are no known nearby paleont ological sites
that are within the same geologic unit that the project trail would cross; therefore, the proposed
project would not result in any impacts to paleontological resources.
4.5.3 Conclusion
There are no known historic or paleontological resources on or in the vicinity of the project area.
The project would result in a less than significant impact on subsurface archaeological resources with
implementation of the above-listed mitigation measures. (Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 66 September 2016
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following section is based on available information.
4.6.1 Setting
4.6.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulates development in California near known
active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. The Earthquake Fault Zones
indicate areas with potential surface fault-rupture hazards. Areas within the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure
that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.
The project alignment is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are no
active major faults within the project area; therefore, the project area would not be subject to the
regulations of the act.
City of East Palo Alto General Plan
The City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan consists of policies which have a goal to reduce the risk to
the community from hazards associated with geologic conditions and seismic activity. Safety Policy
1.1 requires developers and agencies to reduce the risk of impacts from geologic and seismic hazards
by applying proper development, engineering, and building construction requirements.
City of Menlo Park General Plan
The City of Menlo Park’s General Plan includes geologic and seismic safety policies which include
the following policies:
Policy S1.2: Location of Public Improvements. Avoid locating public improvements and
utilities in areas with identified flood, geologic a nd/or soil hazards to avoid any extraordinary
maintenance and operating expenses. When the location of public improvements and utilities
in such areas cannot be avoided, assure that effective mitigation measures will be
implemented.
Policy S1.13: Geotechnical Studies. Continue to require site-specific geologic and
geotechnical studies for land development or construction in areas of potential land instability
as shown on the State and/or local geologic hazard maps or identified through other means.
Policy S1.14: Potential Land Instability. Prohibit development in areas of potential land
instability identified on State and/or local geologic hazard maps, or identified through other
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 67 September 2016
means, unless a geologic investigation demonstrates hazards can be mitigated to an
acceptable level as defined by the State of California.
4.6.1.2 Geologic and Seismic Conditions
This section describes geology and seismic conditions within the San Francisco Bay Area and soil
conditions in the immediate project area which includes areas within and adjacent to the proposed
project site.
Regional Geology
The project area is located within California’s Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, a geologically
young and seismically active region. The Bay Area experienced uplift and faulting in several
episodes during late Tertiary time (about 25 to 2 million years ago). This produ ced a series of
northwest-trending valleys and mountain ranges, including the Berkeley Hills, the San Francisco
Peninsula, and the intervening San Francisco Bay. Uplifted areas were eroded and Pleistocene and
recent marine sediments were deposited in the San Francisco Bay. Stream and marshland sediments
were deposited in low-lying areas adjacent to the Bay. The lowland deposits, which underlie most of
the project area, consist mostly of the deposits of Holocene-age Bay Mud (less than 11,000 years old)
and artificial fill. The Holocene-age deposits consist of a mix of clay, silt, sand, and gravel.
Seismicity
The active or potentially active faults of most significance to the project area are the Monte Vista -
Shannon, San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults. The Monte Vista-Shannon Fault is
approximately six miles southwest of the project area. The San Andreas Fault is located
approximately eight miles west of the project area. The Hayward Fault lies on the west side of the
East Bay hills and is approximately 11 miles east of the project area. The Calaveras Fault is located
16 miles southeast of the project area. It is predicted that these faults could produce an earthquake
with a maximum magnitude of 6.7 to 7.9. Earthquakes on these or other active faults (including
unmapped faults) could cause strong ground shaking in the project area. Earthquake intensities vary
throughout the Bay Area depending upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of the site
from the causative fault, the type of materials underlying the site, and other factors.
Surface Rupture
Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an
earthquake. The location of surface rupture is generally assumed to be along an active major f ault
trace. According to the California Geologic Survey, the project site is not located within a State -
designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Areas within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures
intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault. There are no active major
faults within or adjacent to the project site; therefore, the potential for a surface rupture in the project
area is low.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 68 September 2016
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated granular sediments from a solid state
to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In the process, the soil undergoes
temporary loss of strength, which commonly causes ground displacement or ground failure to occur.
Since saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the
groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water
table is located at greater depths. The ABAG’s Liquefaction Hazard Maps indicate that the project
area has a moderate to high potential for liquefaction especially in the areas of unconsolidated
alluvial materials such as the areas comprised of artificial fill and floodplain deposits.
Lateral spreading is a type of ground failure related to liquefaction. It consists of the horizontal
displacement of flat-lying alluvial material toward an open area, such as a steep bank of a stream
channel. Portions of the project site, specifically near open channels, are highly susceptible to
liquefaction hazards, indicating that lateral movement to an open face is possible.
Expansive and Compressible Soils
Expansion and contraction of volume can occur when expansive soils undergo alternating cycles of
wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). During these cycles, the volume of the soil changes
markedly. The soils in the project area are predominately clays and silty clays with high shrink -swell
potential. The basin deposits and flood plain deposits are expected to be of clayey nature, and
therefore anticipated to be moderately to highly expansive. Compressible soils include the site’s
younger (soft) Bay Mud deposits and artificial fill when subjected to increased loads suc h as those
imposed by fill or structures.
Landslides
Hillside areas with steep slopes are typically subject to landslides. The project area is relatively f lat.
The project area would, therefore, not be exposed to landslide or erosion related hazards.
Settlement and Differential Settlement
Differential settlement or subsidence could occur if buildings or other improvements were built on
low-strength foundation materials (including imported fill) or if improvements straddle the boundary
between different types of subsurface materials (e.g., a boundary between native material and fill).
Areas of the site are located in former tidal flats that contain loose or uncontrolled (non -engineered)
fill that may be susceptible to differential settlement and settlement due to low strength native soils
and potential unconsolidated fill.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 69 September 2016
4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as described on 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.)
1,2,18
b) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2,18
c) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
1,2,19
d) Landslides? 1,2
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
1
3) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that will
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
1,2
4) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2013),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
1,2
5) 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?
1
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 70 September 2016
4.6.2.1 Geology and Soils Impacts
Seismic Impacts
The proposed project would construct one (Option 1) or two (Option 2) new pedestrian/bicycle
bridges, a raised boardwalk and a paved trail which would be a part of the proposed trail alignment.
As stated in Section 4.6.1.2, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone. Thus, the likelihood of damage to the bridge and boardwalk structures and paved trail
resulting from fault rupture within the project alignment is considered remote and, therefore, would
not result in a significant impact. The project will not exacerbate any hazardous seismic conditions.
In the event of a major earthquake on one of the region’s active faults, strong ground shaking at the
project site will likely occur, but no new structures or facilities designed for human occupancy are
included in the project. Further, the bridge and boardwalk structures will be designed in compliance
with the latest seismic safety standards and codes. Therefore, there would be no substantial risk of
loss of life or property expected from seismic ground shaking at the site, however, damage to bridge
and boardwalk foundations could result from strong seismic ground shaking.
Landslide Impacts
The project site is relatively flat and is not located in a landslide hazard zone. Therefore, no impacts
associated with landslides will occur if the project is constructed.
Soil Impacts
As described in Section 4.6.1.2, the soils present along the proposed trail alignment (i.e., bay muds,
artificial fill, and alluvial deposits) are highly susceptible to liquefaction, differential settlement, and
lateral spreading during a major earthquake. In addition, the soils have properties that can result in
expansion and compression. If not properly addressed, these conditions could result in substantial
damage to foundations that could potentially render the trail unusable. This potential, however, will
be avoided because, per current codes and standards, the entire project will automatically be designed
to account for these conditions. Specifically, site-specific soils testing will be undertaken and
appropriate design features for the structures supports will be developed and implemented, which is
standard procedure per the latest adopted building and seismic safety codes. The geotechnical report
will also include recommendations for grading and site preparation , as appropriate. The project will
not exacerbate the existing hazardous soil conditions.
Septic Systems
The project is the construction of a new trail. No septic systems would be developed under the
project; therefore, no impacts related to septic systems would occur.
4.6.3 Conclusion
As mandated by building and seismic safety codes, the project would be designed to account for
seismic and soils conditions at the site and would not exacerbate these conditions. Therefore, the
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 71 September 2016
project would not result in significant adverse geology, soils, or seismicity impacts to life or
property. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 72 September 2016
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Setting
4.7.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
The United States historically had a voluntary approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. However, on April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority
to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). There are
currently no federal regulations that apply to GHG emissions from construction of a project.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead agency for implementing climate change
regulations in California.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
In October 2009, EPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions. This Final
Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufactures
of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines, and requires annual re porting of emissions.
The Final Rule went into effect on December 29, 2009. This rule does not regulate the emission of
GHGs; it only requires the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions for those sources
above certain thresholds. The EPA adopted a Final Endangerment Finding for the six defined GHGs
on December 7, 2009. The Endangerment Finding is required before the EPA can regulate GHG
emissions under Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA.
California Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed in 2006
and established a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to the adoption of AB
32, the Governor also signed Executive Order S-3-05 into law, which set a long term objective to
reduce GHG emissions to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA) is the state agency in charge of coordinating the GHG emissions
reduction effort and establishing targets along the way.
In December 2008, CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy
sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan
must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on
track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. The First Update to the Scoping Plan was
approved on May 22, 2014 and builds upon the Scoping Plan with new strategies and
recommendations. The First Update defines CARB’s priorities over the next five years and lays the
groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05.8
8 California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Resources Board. First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan.
Available at: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm>
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 73 September 2016
California Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainability Communities Strategy and Climate Protection
Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop
regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020
and 2035 when compared to emissions in 2005. The per capita reduction targets for passenger
vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent
reduction by 2035.9 The four major requirements of SB 375 are:
1. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must meet GHG emission reduction targets for
automobiles and light trucks through land use and transportation strategies.
2. MPOs must create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), to provide an integrated land
use/transportation plan for meeting regional targets, consistent with the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP).
3. Regional housing elements and transportation plans must be synchronized on eight -year
schedules, with Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation numbers conforming to the
SCS.
4. MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques consistent with
guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission.
Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
has partnered with ABAG, BAAQMD, and BCDC to prepare the region’s SCS as part of the RTP
process.10 The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area. MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area in
July 2013.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
BAAQMD identifies thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land -use
development projects in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These guidelines include recommended
significance thresholds, assessment methodologies, and mitigation strategies for GHG emissions.
Under the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, if a project would result in operational -related greenhouse
gas emissions of 1,100 metric tons (MT) (also referred to as the “bright line” threshold), or 4.6 metric
tons per service population11 of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year or more, it would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and result in a cumulatively
significant impact to global climate change.
The bright-line numeric threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year is a numeric emissions level below which
a project’s contribution to global climate change would be less than cumulatively considerable. For
projects that are above this bright-line cutoff level, emissions from these projects would still be less
9 The emission reduction targets are for those associated with land use and transportation strategies, only. Emission
reductions due to the California Low Carbon Fuel Standards or Pavley emission control standards are not included
in the targets.
10 ABAG, BAAQMD, BCDC, and MTC. One Bay Area Frequently Asked Questions. Available at:
<HTTP://ONEBAYAREA.ORG/ABOUT/FAQ.HTML#.UQCEKR2_DAK> Accessed June 4, 2013.
11 Service population is defined as the sum of the number of r esidents and the number of employees at the
development.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 74 September 2016
than cumulatively significant if the project as a whole would result in annual emissions of 4.6 MT
CO2e per service population or less.
City of East Palo Alto Climate Action Plan
The City of East Palo Alto Climate Action Plan provides guidance for community efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Action Plan also includes measures to lower emissions from
criteria pollutants and TACs for future development projects. The Climate Action Plan includes 23
actions to address climate change that mostly focus on emission reductions and energy and water
conservation goals.
City of Menlo Park Climate Change Action Plan
The goal of the City of Menlo Park’s Climate Change Action Plan is to demonstrate where Menlo
Park stands regarding current climate protection strategies needed to achieve the state’s GHG
emissions reductions goals (which requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
levels by 2020). The plan outlines a mix of existing, planned, and proposed strategies that highlight
current successes and establishes continuity between existing strategies and the proposed near -term
strategies.
4.7.1.2 Existing Conditions
Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic-generated (generated by
humankind) atmospheric gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). Solar radiation enters
the earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed at the surface. The earth
emits this radiation back toward space as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which are mostly
transparent to incoming solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation and redirecting
some of this back to the earth’s surface. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped
back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This is known as the
greenhouse effect.
Emissions of GHGs from human activities, such as electricity production, motor vehicle use, and
agriculture, are elevating the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, and are reported to have led
to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or global
climate change. (The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term
“global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred because it implies that there are other
consequences to the global climate in addition to rising temperatures.) Other than water vapor, the
primary GHGs contributing to global climate change include the following gases:
Carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily a byproduct of fuel combustion;
Nitrous oxide (N2O), a byproduct of fuel combustion; also associated with agricultural
operations such as the fertilization of crops;
Methane (CH4), commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g. livestock),
wastewater treatment and landfill operations;
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 75 September 2016
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents,
but their production has been mostly prohibited by international treaty;
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are now widely used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons i n
refrigeration and cooling; and
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions are commonly created by
industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
The CARB estimated that in 2013 California produced about 459 million metric tons (MMT) of
CO2e. The CARB found transportation to be the source of 37.6 percent of the state’s total GHG
emissions, followed by industrial sources (22.7 percent) and in- and out-of-state electricity
generation (19.7 percent). Commercial and residential fuel use (primarily for heating) accounted for
12 percent and agriculture and forestry uses accounted for 8.0 percent of the state’s total GHG
emissions.12
In the Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-
highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for
approximately 41 percent of the Bay Area’s 102.6 MMT CO2e emitted in 2007; the industrial and
commercial sectors accounted for approximately 34 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions.
Electricity generation accounted for approximately 15 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions,
followed by residential fuel usage at 7.0 percent, off-road equipment at 3.0 percent, and agriculture at
1.0 percent. Based on the City of East Palo Alto’s Climate Action Plan, the City emitted
approximately 140,500 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. Over 60 percent were related to
transportation.13 The City of Menlo Park emitted approximately 491,000 metric tons of CO2e in
2005, with 46 percent of emissions associated with transportation emissions (based on the City’s
Climate Change Action Plan).
4.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
1,13
2) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
1,12,13
12 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for
2000-2013 - by Sector and Activity. Last Updated April 2015.
13 BAAQMD. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. December 2008.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 76 September 2016
4.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Short-Term GHG Emissions
The project is estimated to require up to 18 weeks for construction. The GHG emissions would
primarily be generated from equipment and vehicles used for grading and construction of the trail
and emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for construction vehicle trips to and from the project
site. Due to the short construction period, GHG emissions will be minimal. Using the BAAQMD-
recommended California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2, the predicted
GHG emissions from construction of the project is 110 metric tons of CO2e.
The project area is located in an urbanized location near sources of construction supplies and
equipment, which would help to minimize greenhouse gas emissions generated from transport of
construction materials and waste. There is no reliable method to estimate construction-related
emissions associated with the manufacturing of project materials.
Neither the MROSD, City of East Palo Alto, City of Menlo Park, nor BAAQMD have quantified
significance thresholds for construction activities. For the purposes of this Initial Study, however,
estimated construction emissions were compared to BAAQMD’s operational -related GHG emissions
significance threshold to assess the magnitude and significance of the construction emissions. The
110 metric tons of CO2e emissions expected during construction of the project would be well below
the lowest operational-related threshold adopted by BAAQMD (1,100 MT CO2e). For these reasons,
construction of the project would not contribute substantially to local or regional greenhouse gas
emissions. Furthermore, the project includes mitigation (MM AIR-1) requiring implementation of
BAAQMD Best Management Practices. Implementation of these construction practices would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction by reducing the amount of construction
vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment.
Long-Term GHG Emissions
The proposed project consists of construction of a trail to complete a short missing link in the San
Francisco Bay Trail and long-term operations and maintenance of the trail. Once constructed, the
trail will be used by pedestrians and bicyclists and there would be no associated emissions of GHGs.
GHG emissions associated with maintenance and patrolling of the trail would be minimal.
To put the proposed trail in context, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2011) contain a
screening threshold of a 600-acre City Park for operation-related impacts for GHGs. The screening
criteria provide lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in
significant GHG impacts by exceeding the emissions thresholds for GHGs (bright-line numeric
threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year and the annual emissions of 4.6 MT CO2e per service population).
Given that the proposed trail alignment would be less than two acres in size, the proposed project’s
GHG emissions would be well below BAAQMD thresholds.
For these reasons, the trail, once constructed, would not generate significant ongoing operational
GHG emissions. Further, as described below, the project itself is designed to facilitate non-
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 77 September 2016
motorized travel by completing a missing gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail that would result in a
reduction in GHG emissions.
Consistency with Adopted Plans to Reduce GHG Emissions
In May 2011, BAAQMD adopted its updated CEQA Guidelines that contain methodology and
thresholds of significance for evaluating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from proposed projects.
The BAAQMD thresholds were developed specifically for the Bay Area after considering the latest
Bay Area GHG inventory and the effects of AB 32 scoping plan measures that would reduce regional
emissions. BAAQMD intends to achieve GHG reductions from new land use developments to close
the gap between projected regional emissions with AB 32 scoping plan measures and the AB 32
targets.
Because the proposed project would not create new regional vehicle emissions or other long-term
GHG emissions, it would not conflict with any plan or policy intended to reduce long-term GHG
emissions, including AB 32 or local goals. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the
East Palo Alto Climate Action Plan goals and measures to improve walking and bicycling facilities
and non-vehicular methods of travel. The Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan also includes
similar policies to enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and increase non-vehicular methods of
travel.
4.7.3 Conclusion
The construction phase of the proposed project would result in less than significant greenhouse gas
emission impacts. The long-term operational phase of the project would reduce GHG emissions and
be consistent with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions because it will facilitate pedestrian and
bicycle use. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 78 September 2016
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8.1 Setting
4.8.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. EPA is the federal agency responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws
and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. The legislation includes the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (commonly referred to as
“Superfund”), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1986. The EPA provides oversight and supervision for site
investigations and remediation projects, and has developed land disposal restrictio ns and treatment
standards for the disposal of certain hazardous wastes.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/EPA serves as the umbrella agency for the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the SWRCB and its associated
regional Water Boards, all of which have roles in regulating hazardous materials as described below.
Department of Toxic Substance Control
The DTSC regulates remediation of sites where discharges to land could potentially present a public
health risk. California legislation, for which the DTSC has primary enforcement authority, includes
the Hazardous Waste Control Act and the Hazardous Substance Account Act. The DTSC generally
acts as the lead agency for soil and groundwater cleanup projects, and establishes cleanup and action
levels for subsurface contamination that are equal to, or more restrictive than, federal levels.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
The mission of the OEHHA is to protect and enhance public health and the environment by objective
scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances.
State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB, through its nine regional boards, regulates discharge of potentially hazardous materials
to waterways and aquifers and administers basin plans for groundwater resources in various regions
of the State. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the
regional board that has jurisdiction over the project area. The SWRCB provides oversight for sites at
which the quality of groundwater or surface waters is threatened, and has the authority to require
investigations and remedial actions.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 79 September 2016
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates discharges and releases to surface and groundwater in the
project area. The RWQCB generally oversees cases involving groundwater contamination. Within
the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, the County of San Mateo Health Services Agency (CSMHSA)
handles most leaking underground storage tank cases, so the RWQCB may oversee cases involving
other groundwater contaminants; i.e., Spills, Leaks, Incidents, and Clean-up cases. In the case of
spills at a project site, the responsible party would notify the CSMHSA and then a lead regulator
(CSMHSA, RWQCB or DTSC) would be determined.
County of San Mateo Health Services Agency
The CSMHSA, which includes the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division, serves as the
County Local Oversight Program within the County of San Mateo for hazardous materials and soil
and groundwater contamination. This agency oversees several programs related to hazardous
materials and releases. In general, leaking underground storage tank cases affecting groundwater
within the project area are handled by the CSMHSA. Other groundwater contamination cases may
also be handled by the CSMHSA, but can also be deferred to the SWRCB or DTSC, depending on
the responsible party. The Hazardous Materials Division of the CSMHSA oversees hazardous
materials permitting, hazardous materials oversight, and hazardous materials facility closures.
City of East Palo Alto Emergency Operation Plan
The City of East Palo Alto responds to emergencies following the guidelines in the City’s 2011
Emergency Operation Plan. The Plan identifies resources for emergency responses and establishes
coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters such as hazardous materials
incidents and specific emergency evacuation routes. These routes include University Avenue and
Bay Road.
City of Menlo Park Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Menlo Park responds to emergencies following the guidelines in the City’s 2011
Emergency Operation Plan. The Plan identifies resources for emergency responses and establishes
coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters such as hazardous material s
incidents.
Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park: General Plans
The City of East Palo Alto General Plan has a goal to protect the community from hazards associated
with aircraft overflights. The City of Menlo Park’s General Plan consists of policies that require
development to comply with public safety regulations. Policy LU-8.1 prohibits land uses that
encourage a very high concentration of people or negatively affect air navigation as described in the
Airport Land Use Control Plan (ALUCP), or are in excess of maximum heights recommended in the
ALUCP, from the Traffic Pattern Zone of the Plan Area.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 80 September 2016
Hazardous Materials Sites: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires Cal EPA to develop and update (at least annually)
a list of hazardous waste and substances sites. This list is used by the State, local agencies, and
developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The list includes hazardous substance release sites
identified by the DTSC and the SWRCB and solid waste disposal sites identified by CalRecycle.
Based on a search of the state regulatory databases (e.g., Geotracker database managed by DTSC,
Solid Waste Information System Facilities managed by the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), and EnviroStor managed by the DTSC), the project site is not
listed as a hazardous waste or substances site.
4.8.1.2 Existing Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Based upon a number of existing documents and hazardous materials databases, as well as review of
aerial photos, the following is a summary of hazards and hazardous materials conditions along and
near the proposed trail alignment:
According to the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan EIR, there are no listed
hazardous materials sites within the proposed project site boundaries.
There were several contaminated sites within the surrounding area disclosed in the
Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan EIR, which were being either monitored or
actively cleaned up under the guidance of regulatory agencies (i.e., RWQCB and DTSC).
The majority of these sites included underground storage tanks and other automotive uses
which have leaked petroleum products. Other contaminated sites included industrial uses
such as chemical and pharmaceutical company operations, sites with imported fill soil
contaminated with DDE, PCBs and fluoride, and railroad areas containing arsenic-impacted
soils. However, given the distance of the proposed trail alignment from these properties, and
taking into account the remedial action completed, these sites would not adversely affect the
trail or trail users.
Based on the GeoTracker database managed by the SWRCB and the EnviroStor database
managed by the DTSC, the only hazardous materials site listed within one-quarter mile of the
trail alignment is a former business (approximately 200 feet north of the project area) which
is immediately to the north of the railroad tracks and south of the former salt pond. The San
Francisco Bay RWQCB issued an order in 2001, which required the property owner
(SFPUC) to implement remedial actions at the site to address contamination resulting from
the operation of a skeet shooting range on the property from 1939 to 1994. Remedial
activities were completed in 2010 for the final phase of cleanup [of lead and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHS)] at the site. Semi-annual groundwater monitoring was
completed and the cleanup status has been considered “Completed - Case Closed” since
November 2011. Given the distance between the proposed trail and this site, and since the
site has been remediated, the former skeet shooting site is not considered to be a hazard to
future Bay Trail users or construction workers in the project area.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 81 September 2016
Aerial photos of the proposed trail alignment depict what is likely to be undocumented fill in
the area easterly of Fordham Street. Such fills, which likely date back many years before
records documenting their composition were kept, have frequently been found to include
various constituents containing one or more hazardous substances. Testing of the fill at this
location has not been undertaken so it is unknown as to whether hazardous substances are
present.
The project site is not listed by CalRecycle as a solid waste disposal site. There are no solid
waste disposal sites in the vicinity of the project site. The closest listed solid waste disposal
site is located on 2100 Bay Road, East Palo Alto (approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the
site). This solid waste facility is, however, no longer in operation and would not affect the
project.
The closest airport to the project site is the Palo Alto Municipal Airport, which is located
approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site in Santa Clara County. There are no airport
safety zones over the project area identified in the adopted San Mateo County
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan or the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use
Plan for the Palo Alto Airport.
According to the CAL FIRE, the project area is not located in a wildfire hazard severity zone;
therefore, the potential for wildfires in the project area is low.14
4.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
1,2
2) 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?
1,2
14 CAL FIRE. San Mateo County: Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area . Adopted November
2007. Available at: <http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_mateo/fhszs_map.41.pdf>. Accessed July 10, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 82 September 2016
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
3) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
1
4) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, will it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
1,2
Would the project:
5) 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, will
the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
1,2,20
6) For a project within the vicinity of
a private airstrip, will the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
1,2
7) Impair implementation of, or
physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
1,2,4,5,
21
8) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
1,2,22
Impacts Related to Hazardous Materials Use and Hazardous Emissions
The project site is not listed on a state regulatory database as a hazardous materials site. The
proposed trail would be used for recreational purposes and would not involve the routine use,
disposal or transport of hazardous materials. The proposed trail project would not generate
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 83 September 2016
emissions from hazardous materials use or transport. Since the proposed trail does not include the
use of hazardous materials, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the release of hazardous materials in the environment.
As described in Section 4.8.1.2, a portion of the proposed trail alignment easterly of Fordham Street
contains undocumented fill. The location of the undocumented fill is 0.40 miles from the nearest
school (Costano Elementary School). When testing with such fills occurs, it is not uncommon for the
results to indicate that contamination or hazardous substances are present. Testing of this fill easterly
of Fordham Street has not yet occurred. Without such testing, if contamination or hazardous
substances are present and are encountered during construction, construction workers could be
exposed to such conditions.
Impact HAZ-1: Construction of the proposed trail project could expose construction workers to
risks from hazardous materials contamination if such conditions are determined to
be present in the undocumented fill.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce hazardous materials impacts to a
less than significant level.
MM HAZ-1.1: During the final design phase of the project, the portion(s) of the trail alignment
that traverse known or suspected undocumented fill will be tested for the presence
of contamination and hazardous materials. The testing of the soil will be
performed in accordance with standard procedures and protocols. The analytical
results will be compared against applicable hazardous waste criteria. Based on the
analytical results, the investigation will provide recommendations regarding
management and disposal of affected soils if any are found to be present to ensure
the affected soils are handled so as to avoid exposure of workers, the public, and
the environment to hazardous materials. All recommendations shall be followed.
Impacts Related to Airport Safety Hazards
None of the designated safety zones associated with the Palo Alto Municipal Airport extend to the
project site. Additionally, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The
proposed project, therefore, would not create an aviation-related safety hazards for future trail users
and the trail’s location would not constitute a safety hazard to aircraft operations.
Impacts on Emergency Response
During construction of the proposed trail, construction trucks and equipment would utilize the
SFPUC service road to access the construction area. It is possible that access from Fordham Street to
construct the paved segment of the trail in the upland areas could also be used by construct ion
workers. However, Fordham Street is a dead-end roadway, is not a major thoroughfare in and out of
East Palo Alto, and is not a designated evacuation route. Construction of the proposed project would
not, therefore, interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans within the
City or the County.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 84 September 2016
Wildfire Impacts
According to CAL FIRE, the project site is not located within a high wildfire threat area.
Implementation of the proposed project would, therefore, not expose people to natural hazards from
wildfire risk.
4.8.3 Conclusion
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the proposed project would not result in a
significant impact related to hazardous materials. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 85 September 2016
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9.1 Setting
4.9.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are
the primary laws related to water quality. The CWA governs discharges to the “Waters of the United
States,” which includes oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. The Porter -
Cologne Act established the SWRCB.
As described below, regulations set forth by the EPA and the SWRCB have been developed to fulfill
the requirements of this legislation. EPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into
Waters of the United States. These regulations are implemented at the regional level by water quality
control boards. For the project area, the water board is the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Regional
Boards are responsible for developing and enforcing water quality objectives and implementation
plans, known as Basin Plans. The San Francisco region’s Basin Plan was last updated in 2010.
Clean Water Act
The CWA was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since inception. It is the
primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States and forms the basis for several state
and local laws throughout the nation. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the
nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA outlines the federal laws for regulating
discharges of pollutants as well as sets minimum wa ter quality standards for all “Waters of the
United States.” Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural
pollution under the CWA. At the federal level, the CWA is administered by the EPA. At the state
and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs.
The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part
to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related federally-mandated water quality
requirements. In many cases, the federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the
laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the state and regional boards exceed the federal requirements.
CWA Section 303(d) lists polluted water bodies which require further attention to support future
beneficial uses. San Francisco Bay is on the Section 303(d) list as an impaired water body for
several pollutants.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an agency of the United States Department
of Homeland Security. FEMA is responsible for the development and implementation of a
comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and
mitigation. FEMA also maintains Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify floodways and
floodplains for the United States. A FIRM highlights the specific flood hazards, flood risk zones,
and floodplains at a local level of detail.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 86 September 2016
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
As noted previously, the San Francisco BCDC was established in 1965 and its mission is dedicated to
the protection and enhancement of San Francisco Bay. The Bay Plan, completed by the BCDC in
1969, regulates development in and around the Bay, and includes a range of policies on public
access, water quality, fill, and project design. In 2011, the BCDC amended the Bay Plan to include
policies related to the effects of climate change and sea level rise, focusing on the shoreline areas
around the Bay that are most vulnerable to this phenomenon. Projects located within BCDC
jurisdiction are required to comply with these policies if they require a permit from BCDC.
State Water Quality Control Board
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 and federal CWA require local
municipalities to implement measures to control construction and post -construction pollution
entering local storm drainage systems to the maximum extent practicable. To comply with the
requirements of these legislative acts, the SWRCB implemented a NPDES permit for San Mateo
County. Two programs, the Nonpoint Source Pollution Program and the San Mateo Countywide
Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) have been implemented under the NPDES permit
to control construction and post-construction runoff.
Nonpoint Source Management Plan
In 1988, the SWRCB adopted the Nonpoint Source Management Plan in an effort to control nonpoint
source pollution in California. In December 1999, the Plan was updated to comply with the
requirements of Section 319 of the CWA and Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendment of 1990. The Nonpoint Source Management Plan requires individual permits to control
discharge associated with construction activities. The Nonpoint Source Management Pla n is
administered by the RWQCB under the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities. Projects
must comply with the requirements of the Nonpoint Source Program if:
the project disturbs one acre or more of soil; or
the project disturbs less than one acre of soil but is part of a larger development that, in
total, disturbs one acre or more of soil.
The NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities requires the project proponent to submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB and to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to control discharge associated with construction activities.
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP)
The SMCWPPP was developed by the RWQCB to assist local jurisdictions within San Mateo
County in implementing the provisions of the NPDES permit. This program was also designed to
fulfill the requirements of Section 304(1) of the Federal CWA, which mandated that the EPA
develop NPDES application requirements for stormwater runoff. The Program’s Municipal Regional
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 87 September 2016
NPDES stormwater permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal stormwater permits
with one permit for all 76 Bay Area municipalities to standardize requirements throughout the region.
It specifies actions necessary to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to the maximum
extent practicable and effectively prohibits non-stormwater discharges into the municipal storm
drainage system to protect local creeks and the Bay.
Applicable projects consist of all new public and private projects that create 10,000 square feet or
more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and redevelopment projects that
add or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on the project site. Additional
requirements must be met by large projects that create one acre or more of impervious surfaces.
These large projects must control increases in runoff peak flow, volume, and duration (referred to as
hydromodification) caused by the project if the increase in stormwater runoff has the potential to
cause erosion or other adverse impacts to receiving streams.
SFPUC Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy
for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties
As part of its utility system, the SFPUC operates and maintains hundreds of miles of water pipelines
and provides public use on their water pipeline property or right-of-way (ROW), consistent with their
existing plans and policies. The Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Policies help inform how and
in which instances the ROW can serve the needs of third parties – including public agencies, private
parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers seeding to provide recreational and other use
opportunities to local communities.
In terms of hydrology and water quality, permitted trails or walkways should be paved with materials
that both reduce erosion and stormwater runoff (e.g., permeable pavers). The majority of the
proposed project would be striped on the existing SFPUC service road and would not introduce a
substantial amount of new paved surfaces. It is therefore, not inconsistent with SFPUC policies
related to stormwater quality or quantity.
4.9.1.2 Existing Hydrology and Water Quality Conditions
Water Quality
Water quality varies throughout the San Francisco Bay due to variability in discharges of pollutants,
tidal stage, and water circulation. Salinity and the concentrations of total suspended sediment (TSS)
are two of the most basic water quality parameters that describe basic habitat and water chemistry.
Long-term monitoring has shown that South San Francisco Bay experiences large variability in
surface salinity. Variations in salinity occur on seasonal and inter-annual15 time scales, largely in
response to freshwater inputs derived from local watersheds, as well as the Delta. Large river flows
have a strong effect on TSS in Suisun and San Pablo Bays, but a weaker influence on concentrations
in the South Bay, where inputs from the local watersheds affect TSS levels. In general, higher levels
15 Inter annual refers to a time scale occurring between years, or from one year to the next.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 88 September 2016
in salinity and TSS occur during the wet season due to intense watershed inputs, but are reduced
during the dry season when discharges from the watersheds are reduced.16
Groundwater
Historical groundwater levels vary from zero to 10 feet below existing grade in the project area.
Groundwater levels can be influenced by tidal changes, precipitation changes, perched zones,
changes in drainage patterns, and irrigation. For areas of the site that consist of Bay Mud, the
groundwater may be brackish due to the proximity of San Francisco Bay.
Flooding and Projected Sea Level Rise
According to FEMA, the proposed trail alignment is located within the existing 100-year floodplain.
This floodplain encompasses much of the surrounding area including substantial portions of the
University Villages neighborhood and most of the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. Flooding in
the project area is the result of tidal flooding and an inadequate storm drainage system. In general,
the storm drain system in the project area drains toward the San Francisco Bay tidal marshlands.
As noted in Section 4.9.1.1, BCDC’s Bay Plan was amended in 2011 to include findings and policies
on sea-level rise, which is based on a background report that reflects the current state of knowledge
regarding the potential impacts of climate change on the region. The background report, Living with
a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaption in San Francisco Bay and on the Shoreline, identifies
potential impacts of climate change on public health and safety. According to this report, global
warming is expected to result in a 16-inch (1.3 feet) sea level rise in San Francisco Bay by mid-
century (2050) and in a 55-inch (4.6 feet) sea level rise by the end of the century (2100). This would
result in approximately 180,000 acres of Bay shoreline vulnerable to flooding by mid-century, and
213,000 acres vulnerable to flooding by the end of the century. Additionally, it is predicted that
global climate change would also result in extreme storm events, which in combination with higher
sea level, would cause greater flooding within the vulnerable shorelines areas.
For the proposed trail project, the alignment is currently subject to flooding during the 100-year
storm. The above-described projected rises in sea level would extend to the trail alignment and
surrounding area by mid-century, with further increases in flooding projected to continue through
2100. In practical terms, this means that the frequency and magnitude of the flooding tha t already
occurs during storms are projected to worsen in the coming years due to the effects of climate change
and sea level rise.
Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflows and Dam Failures
Large earthquakes can generate seismic sea waves or tsunamis, which can cause damage along the
coastline. The project area is located about 12 miles east of the Pacific Ocean shoreline, and is not
within the County of San Mateo Tsunami Evacuation Planning area; however, according to maps
16 U.S.G.S. Patterns of Water-Quality Variability in San Francisco Bay During the First Six Years of the RMP,
1993-1998. Continuous Monitoring in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Available at:
<http://sfbay.wr.usgs.gov/sediment/cont_monitoring/background.html >. Last Modified December 2007. Accessed
July 13, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 89 September 2016
produced by the California Geological Survey, the zone of possible tsunami inundation extends over
the portion of the project alignment within the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.17
Seiches are oscillating waves in a lake or partly-enclosed body of water caused by an earthquake or
landslide which displaces part of the water body. Most of the lands immediately adjacent to the San
Francisco Bay are at a higher risk of seiche. According to the California Emergency Management
Agency, inundation from a seismically induced tsunami could cause a seiche within the San
Francisco Bay and could inundate the project site within the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
The project area is not within the project inundation zones associated with the failure of any large
dam in San Mateo County.
A mudflow is a large rapid mass of mud formed by loose earth and water. Hillsides and slopes of
unconsolidated material are typically at risk to mudflows if these areas become saturated. Usually, a
mudflow occurs as a result of a dual condition of loss of brush cover and the subsequent
accumulation of water on the ground preceded by a period of heavy or sustained rain. The project
area would not be subject to mudflows as it is not located near any hillsides.
4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
1,2
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there will 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 will drop to a level which will not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
1,2
17 California Emergency Management Agency (CEMA). California Geological Survey. Tsunami Inundation Map
for Emergency Planning, Redwood Point Quadrangle and Palo Alto Quadrangle. June 2009. Available at:
<http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/SanMateo/Documents/Tsunami
_Inundation_RedwoodPointPaloAlto_Quads_SanMateo.pdf >. Accessed July 15, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 90 September 2016
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which will
result in substantial erosion or siltation
on-or off-site?
1,2
4) 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 will result in flooding on-
or off-site?
1,2
5) Create or contribute runoff water which
will exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
1,2
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
1,2
7) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a Federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
1,2,23
8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which will impede or
redirect flood flows?
1,2,23
9) 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?
1,2
10) Be subject to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
1,2,24
4.9.2.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Long-Term Impacts to Drainage and Water Quality
The proposed project is estimated to increase impervious surfaces by adding approximately 7,750
square feet of paved trail surfaces plus approximately 300 square feet of impervious supporting pier
structures for the raised boardwalk and bridge. Since this total is less than the 10,000 square foot
threshold contained in the SMCWPPP, the incorporation of stormwater treatment measures into the
project’s design is not required. However, if during final design, it is determined that more than
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 91 September 2016
10,000 square feet are affected, the project will comply with all applicable NPDES provisions for
trail projects. Stormwater runoff from the paved portion of the trail, which would not be significant
due to its limited size, would flow into adjacent vegetated areas.
The proposed trail has been designed to avoid alteration or blockage of existing drainages or
waterways. This would be done through the installation of a raised boardwalk trail through the
marshland areas. In the upland areas, the new paved trail would be at a similar elevation to the
existing ground surface (approximately eight to 13 feet above mean sea level). Stormwater would
flow overland and percolate into the ground, which reduces the amount of stormwater entering the
San Francisco Bay. Most of the project area would remain pervious and storm drainage facilities
would not be constructed.
The construction of a trail on the project site would increase public access that could affect water
quality including an increase in trash left by trail users. The trail has been designed to avoid
waterways and the District will implement their standard trash removal policies (“pack in, pack out”)
on-site. Periodic trash removal events would also be implemented. The placement of a trail within
the project area could serve to reduce the number and extent of homeless encampments due to the
increased presence of a legitimate trail use (and users) on-site.
Short-Term Impacts to Water Quality
Impacts related to water quality could occur during construction activities. For example, the
disruption of soils could result in off-site deposition of sediments that could adversely affect water
quality in the San Francisco Bay. In addition, hazardous materials such as fuel, oil, paint, and
solvents are routinely used during construction, and the accidental spill or release of these substances
could adversely affect water quality, which is considered a significant impact. While construction
activities would be temporary in nature, the potential impacts to water quality could last beyond the
duration of construction, depending on the extent of degradation.
Impact HYD-1: The construction phase of the proposed project could result in sedimentation
and/or the accidental release of hazardous substances, which could adversely
affect the water quality of the marshland and San Francisco Bay.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would avoid or minimize water quality impacts
during construction to ensure the project is in compliance with regional water quality standards and
waste discharge requirements. These measures are consistent with the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD
Specific Plan Policy LU-4.5.
MM HYD-1.1: Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the project shall
comply with the SWRCB’s NPDES General Construction Activities Permit, as
follows:
The project contractor shall develop, implement, and maintain a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control the discharge of stormwater
pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities; and
The project contractor shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 92 September 2016
MM HYD-1.2: The project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the
discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with
construction activities. Prior to installation, the contractor shall be required to
prepare an Erosion Control Plan to ensure that erosion is minimal on the site and
water quality standards of the RWQCB are not exceeded. The Erosion Control
Plan shall include BMPs as specified in the Manual of Standards for Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures18 for reducing impacts on the storm drainage system
from installation activities. The following specific BMPs shall be implemented to
prevent stormwater pollution and minimize potential sedimentation during
construction and shall be included in the construction contract:
Utilize on-site sediment control BMPs to retain sediment on the project site;
Stabilized construction entrances and/or on-site truck tire washing stations
shall be utilized at the construction site to reduce visible mud or dirt track-out
onto adjacent public roads, to the maximum extent feasible. The use of power
sweeping equipment is prohibited;
Provide temporary cover of disturbed surfaces to help control erosion during
installation;
Provide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after installation
has been completed;
Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly, so as
to prevent their contact with stormwater;
Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including soli d
wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or
sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses;
Utilize sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment from dewatering
effluent;
Refueling of construction equipment and maintenance equipment (e.g.
chainsaws, string or line trimmers) must be done 65 feet from riparian or
wetland areas. Spill-kits and a plan for notification should a spill occur, will
be required;Portable toilets should be located in an area away from wetland
areas;
Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer
zones, trees, and drainage courses with field markers; and
Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts
using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or
other measures as appropriate.
In addition to the above measures, implementation of MM BIO-5.1 – BIO-5.6 (see Section 4.4.2.1)
would also reduce or avoid any water quality impacts associated with ground disturbance during
construction. The project would, therefore, not violate the RWQCB’s water quality standards.
18 Association of Bay Area Governments. Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. May
1995.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 93 September 2016
Impacts to Groundwater
The project is the construction of a trail, which would not require suppl ies of water over the long-
term.
As described in Section 4.9.1.2, historical groundwater levels vary from zero to 10 feet below
existing grade in the project area. Based on this information, the construction phase of the project
could encounter groundwater at shallow levels. If groundwater is encountered during excavation,
temporary dewatering during construction may be necessary. This could locally and temporarily
affect shallow groundwater elevations and flow. However, dewatering, if needed, would not continue
after construction, so that long-term effects on groundwater would not occur. Dewatering activities,
if needed, would be completed in accordance with the City of East Palo Alto or Menlo Park
requirements.
Impacts Associated with Flooding & Sea Level Rise
As discussed previously, the proposed trail alignment is within an existing 100-year floodplain,
which means that the trail would be flooded during 100-year storms. As was also described
previously, the magnitude and frequency of flooding will increase by mid-century as the projected
effects of sea level rise reach the trail and surrounding area. Such effects would continue to worsen
in subsequent years as sea level rise continues through the end of the century. It is important to
reiterate that flooding would not only affect the trail but much of the surrounding area as well.
It should be noted that there would be no risk to the public if the project is constructed as currently
designed because no one would be using (or desire to use) the trail during such events since the entire
area would be inundated. By nature of being located along the shoreline of the Bay or along creek
corridors, it is not uncommon for portions of certain trails in the Bay Area and elsewhere to be
flooded during and after some storm events. In such instances, the affected portion(s) of the trails are
temporarily closed until the flooding subsides. The project will not exacerbate flooding or sea level
rise.
BCDC is encouraging jurisdictions around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay to plan for the effects
of sea level rise by developing adaptive management plans. In the long‐term, planners and decision‐
makers will need to consider how best to protect the entire project area due to the increase in sea
level. The plan could include the reconstruction of infrastructure and private development at
elevations above the projected sea level, removal of development from the zone of inundation,
construction of levees, or some combination thereof.
The trail would not impede or redirect flood flows as the new paved portion will be constructed at-
grade and will not entail structures (e.g., buildings) that might block flows. The boardwalk section
would not block flood flows as it would be constructed three to eight feet above the marsh.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 94 September 2016
Impacts due to Tsunami Inundation
As noted previously, the project area is within a tsunami inundation area, which is common to the
entire shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. The tsunami hazard maps do not represent inundation
from a single scenario event. They were created by combining inundation results for a collection of
realistic local and distant earthquakes and hypothetical extreme undersea, near -shore landslides,
representing the worst-case scenario at any given location. The actual depth or extent of inundation
cannot be predicted; thus, land use planning is the best protection measure against significant risk
from a tsunami. The project will not exacerbate potential tsunami conditions.
The proposed project is a low intensity recreational use with minimal boardwalk and bridge
structures development. The project’s features and its location within the southern portion of the Bay
keep the risk to the public low. The project would maintain the existing protection buffer of open
space between the Bay and the urban development of East Palo Alto.
According to findings reported in the Redwood City Seismic Advisory Board report, the largest
tsunami recorded at the Golden Gate Bridge was three feet high. Since the project site is located in
the southern margin of the San Francisco Bay, more than 20 miles from the Golden Gate Bridge, the
tsunami waves would attenuate to less than three feet high. For this reason, the potential for tsunamis
affecting the future trail users is considered low to remote. The project site would be protected by
the bordering marshland located in the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.19 The proposed project
would, therefore, not be significantly impacted by tsunami inundation.
Impacts due to Dam Inundation and Mudflows
As mentioned previously, the project area is not within a dam inundation zone and would not be
subject to mudflows.
4.9.3 Conclusion
The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures above, would not result in
significant hydrology and water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
19 City of East Palo Alto. Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan EIR. July 2012.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 95 September 2016
4.10 LAND USE
4.10.1 Setting
4.10.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
State legislation, namely the McAteer-Petris Act, was passed in 1965 to establish and govern the San
Francisco BCDC. The BCDC is dedicated to the protection and enhancement of San Francisco Bay.
The San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan), completed by BCDC in 1969, regulates development in and
around the Bay, and includes a range of policies on public access, water quality, fill, and project
design. The Bay Plan also designates shoreline areas that should be reserved for water-related
purposes like ports, industry, public recreation, airports, and wildlife refuges. For additional details
on BCDC jurisdiction and its applicability to the proposed trail, please see Section 4.4.1.1.
The Shoreline Spaces, Public Access Design Guidelines provide direction on how to design projects
consistent with BCDC’s laws and policies regarding public access. All projects located within
BCDC jurisdiction should meet the BCDC’s Seven Public Access Objectives.
San Francisco Bay Trail Plan
The San Francisco Bay Trail Plan proposes development of a regional hiking and bicycling trail
around the perimeter of the San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay. The Plan was prepared by ABAG
pursuant to Senate Bill 100. The Bay Trail Plan proposes an alignment for what is intended to
become a 500-mile recreational ring round the Bay.
The project area includes the Ravenswood Bay Trail gap (Segment 2092) as a short missing link in
the Bay Trail on the San Francisco Peninsula. This missing link is located between the existing on-
street bicycle lane on University Avenue and the existing unpaved multipurpose trail in the
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
City of East Palo Alto General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
The City of East Palo Alto General Plan is an adopted statement of goals and policies that provides
guidance on how land use designations should be developed to contribute to the overall character of
East Palo Alto. All development in the city must conform to the land use designations outlined in the
General Plan. Under State law, the City’s General Plan is the primary planning document and all
other City plans and policies must be consistent with the adopted General Plan. The Zoning
Ordinance of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code regulates land use in the city. The Zoning
Ordinance is the mechanism used to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan
and to regulate all land use within the city.
Various policies in the City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan have been adopted for t he purpose of
avoiding or mitigating land use impacts resulting from planned development within the City. The
proposed trail that is the subject of this Initial Study would be subject to the land use policies listed in
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 96 September 2016
East Palo Alto’s General Plan, including the following: Land Use Policy 2.2: Promote high quality
in the design of all public and private development projects; Land Use Policy 3.2: Ensure that new
development is compatible with the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land use s, and
available public infrastructure; and Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.2: Provide
physical improvements, such as parking lots, sidewalks, trails, access points, or other facilities that
promote greater use of recreation and open space lands and the Bay.
Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
The Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan includes phased implementation of a future two-lane
road and pedestrian/bicycle trail from University Avenue to connect eastward to the Bay Trail. The
first phase includes the trail only and the second phase includes the trail and road. All future trail
improvements addressed by this Initial Study would be subject to the land use goals and policies
listed in this Specific Plan, including the following: LU-4.5: Require landscaping and ground cover
as a component of all projects to prevent soil erosion; UTIL-5.1: Ensure that new development does
not adversely affect the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve; CUL-1.1: Ensure that City, State, and
Federal historic preservation laws, regulation and codes are implemented, including State laws
related to archaeological resources, to ensure the adequate projection of historic and prehistoric
resources.
East Palo Alto Bay Access Master Plan
The Bay Access Master Plan (BAMP) is designed to improve the amenities and quality of life of
existing and future East Palo Alto residents, employers, and employees working in East Palo Alto.
The guiding concept for the BAMP is to create a comprehensive system of pocket parks connected
by a network of trails. This includes completing the Ravenswood Bay Trail gap. The BAMP would
ensure that all East Palo Alto residents can use pedestrian trails to connect to the Bay and to parks
and trails such as Cooley Landing, Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, Coyote Hills, and
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. To the extent possible, improvements shall adhere to BCDC’s
Shoreline Spaces, Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay.
City of Menlo Park General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
The General Plan for the City of Menlo Park guides the physical development and character of the
City. The General Plan sets forth City policies regarding the types and locations for future land uses
and activities and is used by the City Council and Planning Commission in considering planning and
land use decisions.
The Zoning Ordinance enforces the land uses designated in the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance
defines the zoning districts that the City is divided into and identifies the land uses permitted and
conditionally permitted.
4.10.1.2 Existing Land Use Conditions
The project study area is located generally east of University Avenue, south of the San Mateo County
Transit District’s Dumbarton railroad line, north of the University Village residential neighborhood
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 97 September 2016
in the City of East Palo Alto, and west of the existing San Francisco Bay Trail within the
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in the City of Menlo Park. Existing land uses in the project area
are shown in Figure 2.2-2.
4.10.1.3 General Plan and Zoning Designations
The portion of the project alignment from University Avenue to the SFPUC right-of-way is within
the public right-of-way and unzoned. Outside of the property owned by the SFPUC, the General
Plan Designation is Resource Management and the Zoning District is Ravenswood Open Space
within the City of East Palo Alto. The Caltrans wetland immediately to the east of University
Avenue, as well as the eastern end of the project area are, within the City of Menlo Park and have a
General Plan Designation of Non-Urban with a Flood Plain Zoning District.
4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
LAND USE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established
community?
1
2) 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?
1,3-6,
11,16,25,
33
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
1
4.10.2.1 Land Use Impacts
Established Communities
The proposed trail would complete a key linkage to the regional trail system for the existing Bay
Trail and would provide the same function as the surrounding trail. The project would improve
pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access throughout and beyond the project area. The proposed
trail alignment would provide residents of the adjacent University Village pedestrian and bicycle
access to the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, Cooley Landing and the Bay Trail. Since the
proposed trail is an extension of the existing Bay Trail alignment, it is not a new use (such as
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 98 September 2016
commercial and industrial uses) and therefore the proposed trail would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with the East Palo Alto and Menlo Park General Plans, t rail
use would be a recreational amenity to the local community and would not be incompatible with the
surrounding residential uses. Based on these conditions, the proposed project would not divide
existing communities within the project area, and would therefore have no impact on established
communities.
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans and Regulations
As mentioned previously, a portion of the proposed trail alignment is within BCDC’s jurisdictional
area and would require a permit from BCDC. The Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park would
comply with the necessary requirements including compliance with the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act for all project activities within BCDC jurisdiction. The project proposes to
increase and improve public access opportunities along the Bay, which is consistent with BCDC’s
main goals and the project would be designed to meet BCDC’s Shoreline Spaces, Public Access
Design Guidelines. For a discussion of the project’s consistency with BCDC policies pertaining to
sea level rise, please see Section 4.9.2.1.
The proposed trail is located within the jurisdictions of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The
proposed project does not propose any General Plan or zoning amendments as part of the project.
The City of East Palo Alto’s Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan includes a future two-lane
road and pedestrian/bicycle trail from University Avenue to connect eastward to the Bay Trail. The
proposed trail is a component of the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan and is consistent
with the overall design and rezoning for the loop road in the Specific Plan and would not conflict
with implementation of the loop road and the associated pedestrian improvements. For these reasons,
the proposed project would not conflict with the Specific Plan or relevant General Plans or zoning
ordinances.
In addition, future trail construction would be required to conform to the City of East Palo Alto’s Bay
Access Master Plan and BCDC’s Shoreline Spaces, Public Access Design Guidelines for the San
Francisco Bay, which include guidelines for setbacks, landscaping, and trail design.
The proposed project also includes a transfer of a public trail easement over the SFPUC property
from the SFPUC to MROSD. MROSD would then adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan
for the trail easement. Ultimately, MROSD may transfer the public trail easement to another public
agency. Such a transfer by MROSD to another public agency, under the terms of the proposed trail
easement, will require prior written consent, which SFPUC may grant or withhold at its reasonable
discretion. In determining whether to propose or to approve such a transfer, SFPUC and MROSD
may consider the proposed assignee's demonstrated ability and capacity, in terms of budget,
personnel and experience, to perform the obligations under the agreement (including maintenance,
repair, patrolling and enforcement obligations). The trail easements would not conflict with any
applicable land use plans.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 99 September 2016
Habitat Conservation Plans
There are currently no locally or State-established habitat or natural community conservation plans
applicable to the project area or the proposed project. As a result, there would be no impact with
regard to conflicts with the implementation of such plans.
4.10.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would be consistent with applicable land use plans and policies, would not
divide an established community, and would not result in adverse land use impacts.
(No Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 100 September 2016
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Setting
According to the California Department of Conservation, the San Francisco Bay Region is classified
into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ). The project area is mapped as MRZ-1, an area
where no significant mineral or aggregate deposits are present.20 The nearest salt pond is located
approximately two miles east of the project area, immediately adjacent and to the west of Bedwell
Bayfront Park in Menlo Park and a former salt pond occurs approximately 400 feet north of the site,
to the north of the railroad tracks.21
The proposed trail would extend from University Avenue and would terminate at the existing Bay
Trail and would not impact the salt ponds in the region. The East Palo Alto and Menlo Park General
Plans do not identify mineral resources within or adjacent to the project area.
4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that will be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
1,2,4,5
2) 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?
1,2,4,5
4.11.2.1 Mineral Resources Impacts
The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and no mineral
excavation sites are present within the project area. The proposed project would, therefore, not result
in any adverse impacts to mineral resources.
4.11.3 Conclusion
The project would not result in impacts to known mineral resources. (No Impact)
20 California Department of Conservation. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of the South San
Francisco Bay Production – Consumption Region. Open – File Report 96-03. Plate 1 of 29. 1996. Available at:
<http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/smaramaps.htm>. Accessed July 9, 2015.
21 South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Map. Available at:
<http://www.southbayrestoration.org/maps/Display%20map%20v46.pdf>. Accessed July 9, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 101 September 2016
4.12 NOISE
4.12.1 Setting
4.12.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
City of East Palo Alto General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan identifies noise and land use
compatibility standards for various land uses. There is no established noise level for trails, but there
is one for neighborhood parks. The City of East Palo Alto General Plan Noise/Land Use
Compatibility Matrix identifies neighborhood parks with 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) or less as a “Clearly Compatible” use.
East Palo Alto Municipal Code
In addition to the above General Plan policies, construction of the trail would be subject to East Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 15.04.125, which limits construction activity to 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM
weekdays, Saturdays from 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, with no construction on Sundays or national
holidays.
City of Menlo Park General Plan
The City of Menlo Park has standards to protect the health and safety of residents and the community
from unreasonable noise from any and all sources in the community and to strive to locate uses
compatible to the area to minimize escalation of noise from mobile and stationary sources.
Applicable General Plan noise policies include:
N1.4 Noise Sensitive Uses. Protect existing residential neighborhoods and noise sensitive
uses from unacceptable noise levels and vibration impacts. Noise sensitive uses include, but
are not limited to, hospitals, schools, religious facilities, convalescent homes and businesses
with highly sensitive equipment. Discourage the siting of noise-sensitive uses in areas in
excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation and locate noise sensitive uses away
from noise sources unless mitigation measures are included in development plans.
N1.8 Potential Annoying or Harmful Noise. Preclude the generation of annoying or
harmful noise on stationary noise sources, such as construction and property maintenance
activity and mechanical equipment.
City of Menlo Park Municipal Code
In addition to the General Plan, noise regulations are also contained in the City of Menlo Park
Municipal Code (Municipal Code). Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code contains noise limitations
and exclusions for land uses within the City. The Noise Ordinance addresses noise limits that would
constitute a noise disturbance, primarily as measured on residential land uses. The following
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 102 September 2016
regulations would be applicable to the project and are also consistent with the requirements of the
City of East Palo Alto:
Construction Noise
Construction activities shall occur between the hours of 8 AM and 6 PM, Monday through
Friday.
All powered equipment shall comply with the limits set forth in Municipal Code, Section
8.06.040(b).
o Powered equipment used on a temporary, occasional or infrequent basis operated
between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM Monday through Friday shall not generate
noise in excess of eighty-five (85) dBA at fifty (50) feet.
4.12.1.2 Overview of Noise Principles
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or
annoying. The objectionable nature of sound can be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the
height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by
which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which
are used to describe noise in a particular location. A dB is a unit of measurement which indicates the
relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that
the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a
logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while
20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a
relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10
decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly
wide range of intensities.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-
weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which
the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time,
a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the
variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an
average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation o f all the time-varying events.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can
accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus one dBA. Various
computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and
airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the
noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus one to
two dBA.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise
interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate
artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level,
CNEL, is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a five dB penalty added
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 103 September 2016
to evening (7:00 PM – 10:00 PM) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM) noise
levels.
4.12.1.3 Existing Noise and Vibration Conditions
According to the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan Final EIR, noise sources in the project
area are primarily from traffic on University Avenue, general aviation flights from the Palo Alto
Municipal Airport and distant noise from Highway 84. The project area closest to University
Avenue has an estimated CNEL of 70 dBA and the project area near the Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve has an estimated CNEL of 59 dBA.
Common sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (primarily impact pile-
driving), trains, and to a lesser extent truck traffic. There are no heavy or light -rail facilities in the
vicinity of the project site. Minimal vibration in the area results from vehicle and truck traffic on
University Avenue and the existing SFPUC service roadway. Existing vibration levels were not
measured or calculated for this analysis since there are no major sources of operational vibration in
the project area.
4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Will the project result in:
1) 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?
1,2,4,5
2) Exposure of persons to, or generation
of, excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
1,2,4,5
3) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
1,2,4,5
4) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
1
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 104 September 2016
NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
5) 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, will the project expose people
residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
1,2,4,5,
20
6) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, will the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
1,2
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 105 September 2016
4.12.2.1 Noise Impacts
Long-Term Noise Levels
Based on the noise levels from the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan noise measurements
on University Avenue and at the northeast end of the University Village, most of the trail alignment
would be considered a “Clearly Compatible” and “Generally Acceptable” use under East Palo Alto
and Menlo Park guidelines because the noise levels are less than 65 dBA CNEL. Noise levels
greater than 65 dBA CNEL would be limited to areas immediately adjacent to University Avenue.
While noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL are discouraged for park uses, in this case the noise levels
adjacent to University Avenue would not be considered a significant effect on trail users because of
the transitory nature of the exposure (i.e., trail users would be in motion and only in proximity to
University Avenue for a short duration).
Operation of the trail itself would not result in a discernible increase in ambient noise levels within
the adjacent neighborhood as there would be no ongoing use of motor vehicles and/or noise
generating equipment. While the trail would be open until 10 pm, the only noise would be from trail
users (both pedestrians and bicyclists) along the fenced back and side yards of residences located on
Tulane Avenue. Conversations among trail users would likely be intermittently audible at some
residences in University Village but would not constitute a significant noise impact. There would be
no long-term vibration impacts associated with the operation of the proposed trail.
The proposed trail alignment is located outside the Palo Alto Airport’s noise impact footprint and
therefore, trail users would not be exposed to excessive noise from aircraft.
Short-Term Construction Noise and Vibration Levels
Construction of the trail would generate noise and would temporarily increase noise levels at
adjacent land uses. Noise impacts resulting from construction will depend on the noise generated by
various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and
the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors.
Trail construction is estimated to take approximately 22 weeks. The first four weeks would consist
of mobilization and site preparation. The next 17 weeks would consist of trail striping on the service
road, construction of paved trail segments, boardwalk and bridge construction, resurfacing of the
existing trail segment and plantings. The last week would includ e site cleanup and demobilization.
This sequence is subject to change.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 106 September 2016
A portion of the proposed trail would be adjacent to the University Villages residential neighborhood
in East Palo Alto. Noise from construction activities and equipment will be audible above
background noise levels, especially at the first row of homes. Depending upon the phase of
construction and the equipment being used, as well as the time of day when the work occurs, such
noise increases could interfere with typical residential activities such as conversations and sleeping.
This would be a significant short-term noise impact; however, with implementation of the following
mitigation measures, the project would not conflict with the requirements of the cities of East Palo
Alto and Menlo Park.
Impact NOI-1: Construction noise could result in a temporary noise level impact on adjacent
residences.
With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, construction noise would result in a
less than significant impact on adjacent residences.
MM NOI-1.1: In compliance with East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 15.04.125 and the
City of Menlo Park General Plan, construction activity will be limited to 8:00
AM – 6:00 PM weekdays with no construction on Saturdays, Sundays or
national holidays. This will avoid increased noise levels at adjacent
residences during the noise-sensitive evening and nighttime hours.
MM NOI-1.2: The contractor shall use “new technology” power construction equipment
with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal
combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate
mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created
by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components.
MM NOI-1.3: Stationary noise generating equipment shall be located as far as possible from
sensitive receptors.
MM NOI-1.4: Stationary equipment located within 100 feet of existing residential receivers
shall be acoustically shielded.
MM NOI-1.5: Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines in excess of five minutes
will be prohibited.
MM NOI-1.6: The contractor shall prepare a construction plan identifying the schedule for
major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall
identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent land uses so that
construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 107 September 2016
MM NOI-1.7: The contractor will designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be
responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g.,
bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures be
implemented to correct the problem.
The proposed project does not require the use of pile driving for the construction of any components
of the project. The boardwalk is expected to be supported by helical anchor foundations that are
screwed into the ground and the bridges are expected to be supported by cast-in drilled hole pile
foundations. For these reasons, ground-borne temporary construction vibration impacts would be
less than significant.
4.12.2 Conclusion
Implementation of the above construction noise mitigation measures would ensure that the project
would not expose nearby residents to substantial increases in ambient noise levels above existing
levels or to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. The project would comply with
applicable noise ordinances and not exceed standards established by the City of East Palo Alto.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts. (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 108 September 2016
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Setting
According to ABAG, the City of East Palo Alto had a population of approximately 29,100 residents
with 7,170 households. By 2035, the population of East Palo Alto is projected to be 33,900 residents
with 8,100 households. In 2015, the City of Menlo Park had a population of approximately 32,000
residents with 12,700 households. By 2035, the population of Menlo Park is projected to be 35,800
residents with 14,150 households.22
4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) 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)?
1,26
2) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1
3) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
1
4.13.2.1 Impacts to Population and Housing
The proposed project would serve as a public trail for pedestrians and bicyclists. The project does
not include facilities which would directly or indirectly result in job or population growth. The
project does not propose any new housing and no housing exists on the project site. The project
would, therefore, not displace housing or people.
4.13.3 Conclusion
The project would not impact population or housing. (No Impact)
22 Association of Bay Area Governments. Plan Bay Area: Projections 2013. December 2013.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 109 September 2016
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Setting
4.14.1.1 Fire Services
Fire protection services to the project area are provided by the Menlo Park Fire Protection District
(Fire District). The Fire District serves approximately 30 square miles including the communities of
Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. The
department consists of seven stations distributed throughout the Fire District service area.23 The
closest fire station to the project area is Station No. 2 located at 2290 University Avenue in East Palo
Alto, approximately 2.0 miles south of the project area.
4.14.1.2 Police Services
Police services for the project area within municipal boundaries of the City of East Palo Alto would
be provided by the City of East Palo Alto Police Department (EPAPD), which operates from its
headquarters at 141 Demeter Street. The EPAPD has 48 sworn officers. The City of East Palo Alto,
which covers a 2.6 square mile area, is divided into four police beats with one police officer
patrolling each beat. In 2012, the City of East Palo Alto had 1,870 FBI-reported crimes; of these
reported crimes approximately 64 percent were non-violent crimes (e.g., property crimes, burglary,
larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft) and the remaining 36 percent were reported violent crimes.24
MROSD currently provides ranger patrol of the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and the City of
East Palo Alto is currently responsible for the opening and closure of the access gate at Cooley
Landing Park. The Cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and the San Mateo County
Sheriff’s Department participate in a mutual aid program. Through this program, should the East
Palo Alto or Menlo Park Police Departments need additional assistance, one or more of the mutual
aid cities or county would provide assistance in whatever capacity was needed.
4.14.1.3 Parks
A portion of MROSD’s Ravenswood Open Space Preserve is located within the project site. A
portion of the existing San Francisco Bay Trail traverses the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
Jack Farrell Park is the closest City park to the project area, which is approximately 0.5 miles south
of the project area. Cooley Landing (9.0 acres) is a bayfront nature park in East Palo Alto and Menlo
Park, approximately 0.7 miles to the south of the project area. Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve is
approximately 2.0 miles to the south of the project area, located in City of Palo Alto.
23 Menlo Park Fire District. Menlo Park Fire Protection District Information. 2008. Available at
<http://www.menlofire.org/about%20us.html>. Accessed September 27, 2012.
24 Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States 2012. Table 8: California Offenses Known to Law
Enforcement, by City 2012. . Available at: < https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-
the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-
cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_california_by_city_2012.xls>. > . Accessed July 8, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 110 September 2016
4.14.1.4 Schools
The closest public elementary school to the project area is Costano School and 49ers Academy (2695
Fordham Street) in East Palo Alto, which serves kindergarten through eighth grade, and is located
approximately 0.1 miles to the south. The nearest public high school to the project area is Aspire
East Palo Alto Charter School (1039 Garden Street) in East Palo Alto, which serves grades
kindergarten through 12 and is located approximately one mile south of the project area.
4.14.1.5 Other Public Facilities – Libraries
The nearest library to the project area is the East Palo Alto Library (2415 University Avenue). This
library offers books, computer services, a copy center, and a homework center. The East Palo Alto
Library is located one-half mile south of the project area.
4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the 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?
1,2,27
1,2,28
1,2,29
1,2
1,2, 30
4.14.2.1 Public Services Impacts
Fire and Police Services
The proposed trail would be constructed in conformance with current fire codes, including adequate
emergency vehicle access, features to reduce potential fire hazards, and appropriate safety features to
minimize criminal activity. Assuming that the proposed extension of the existing Bay Trail would
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 111 September 2016
result in an increase in trail users, there would likely be a small incremental increase in the need for
emergency services. In terms of the risk of fire danger, the physical characteristics of the site would
be similar both pre- and post-project and would not substantially increase the risk of fire danger.
MROSD park rangers would patrol the proposed alignment which would minimize any increase in
calls for service from the East Palo Alto and Menlo Police Departments. While additional activity
along the trail could result in a minimal increase in demand for fire protection and police services, no
new fire or police facilities would be required as a result of the project.
Parks
The project would not construct housing or create jobs and, therefore, would not result in an
increased demand for park facilities and would not require additional parkland area. The project
itself is a park-related feature in the form of a trail extension that will provide increased opportunities
for recreation and improved access to parks.
Schools
The proposed project would not increase the population of the City of East Palo Alto or the City of
Menlo Park and, therefore, would not increase the demand for schools.
Other Public Facilities – Libraries
The proposed project would not increase the population of the Cities of East Palo Alto or Menlo Park
and would have no impact on the use of libraries.
4.14.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to public services.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 112 September 2016
4.15 RECREATION
4.15.1 Setting
4.15.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
San Francisco Bay Trail Plan
In 1989, ABAG adopted the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan. The Bay Trail Plan set forth the route and
policies for the development of the San Francisco Bay Trail, a 500-mile shoreline walking and
bicycling path that will one day encircle the Bay. Since 1989, over 340 miles of the Bay Trail have
been completed, following the shoreline in nine counties, passing through 47 cities and crossing four -
and-a half toll bridges.
Within the project area, a segment of the existing Bay Trail is located within the Ravenswood Open
Space Preserve and along University Avenue. The Bay Trail Plan includes the planned, but-not-yet-
constructed Bay Trail segment between University Avenue and the Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve as contemplated by the proposed project.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan
The San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan was completed by the City/County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County to create a safe and effective network for
bicyclists throughout the County. In the project area, the plan proposes the Bay Trail Gap Closure
Project which would complete the gaps in the Bay Trail, including the trail proposed by this project,
to provide a continuous trail within San Mateo County. As mentioned above, the Bay Trail gap in
the project area includes the area between University Avenue and the Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve. Facebook is also anticipated to construct a bicycle/pedestrian trail along the
Dumbarton west bay rail corridor, in coordination with San Mateo County Transportation
Authority.25
SFPUC Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy
for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties
As part of its utility system, the SFPUC operates and maintains hundreds of miles of water pipelines
and provides public use on their water pipeline property or right-of-way (ROW), consistent with their
existing plans and policies. The Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Policies help inform how and
in which instances the ROW can serve the needs of third parties – including public agencies, private
parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers seeding to provide recreational and other use
opportunities to local communities.
25 San Mateo County Transportation Authority. Board of Directors, A genda Item #13A: Dumbarton Rail Update.
May 7, 2015. Available at:
<http://www.smcta.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/TA/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/2015/2015 -05-
07+TA+Dumbarton+Update.pdf>. Accessed December 29, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 113 September 2016
In terms of recreation, SFPUC will consider trail proposals when a multi-jurisdictional entity
presents a plan to incorporate specific ROW parcels into a fully connected trail. The SFPUC will
only consider trail proposals where the trail would not continue onto, or encourage entry onto,
another ROW parcel without a trail and the trail otherwise meets all SFPUC license requirements.
The proposed project is the missing link in the San Francisco Bay Trail between the existing on-
street bicycle lane of University Avenue and the existing unpaved multipurpose trai ls in the
MROSD’s Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. For this reason, the proposed trail would be fully
connected and is therefore, consistent with SFPUC policies related to types of recreational uses.
East Palo Alto Recreation and Community Services Strategic Plan
The East Palo Alto Recreation and Community Services Strategic Plan outlines the City’s vision for
parks and recreation. In addition, the Plan includes goals and implementation strategies to achieve
those goals and recommends management options to achieve the City’s park and recreation goals.
Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
The Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan includes provisions for approximately 4.5 miles of
new trails that includes the proposed trail evaluated in this Initial Study. The proposed trail is part of
the phased implementation of a future two-lane road and pedestrian/bicycle trail from University
Avenue to connect eastward to the Bay Trail. The first phase includes the trail only and the second
phase includes the trail and road.
East Palo Alto Bay Access Master Plan
The Bay Access Master Plan (BAMP) is designed to improve the amenities and quality of life of
existing and future East Palo Alto residents, employers, and employees working in East Palo Alto.
The guiding concept for the BAMP is to create a comprehensive s ystem of pocket parks connected
by a network of trails. This includes the proposed project, which would close the Ravenswood Bay
Trail gap. The BAMP would ensure that all East Palo Alto residents can use pedestrian trails to
connect to the Bay and to existing and future parks and trails such as Cooley Landing, Palo Alto
Baylands Nature Preserve, Menlo Park Baylands, the Dumbarton Bridge, Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve, Coyote Hills, and the Mountain View Baylands.
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve Comprehensive Use and Management Plan
In 1990, MROSD formally adopted a Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for the
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. This document identifies trail improvements to facilitate public
use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians on the former salt pond levee, which is designated as
the Bay Trail.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 114 September 2016
City of East Palo Alto General Plan
The City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan consists of policies with the goal to provide adequate open
space and recreational opportunities in the City of East Palo Alto. Recreation Policy 6.1 indicates
that projects should maximize the utility of existing parks, recreational facilities, and open space.
City of Menlo Park General Plan
The City of Menlo Park’s General Plan consists of policies to preserve parks and open space
facilities in the City. Applicable General Plan policies include:
OSC2.1 Open Space for Recreation Use. Provide open space lands for a variety of recreation
opportunities, make improvements, construct facilities and maintain programs that
incorporate sustainable practices that promote healthy living and quality of life.
OSC2.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths. Develop pedestrian and bicycle paths consistent with
the recommendations of local and regional trail and bicycle route projects, including the Bay
Trail.
4.15.1.2 Existing Recreation Facilities
A portion of MROSD’s Ravenswood Open Space Preserve is located within the project site. A
portion of the existing San Francisco Bay Trail traverses the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve.
Jack Farrell Park is the closest City park to the project area, which is approximately 0.5 miles south
of the project area. Cooley Landing (9.0 acres) is a bayfront nature park in East Palo Alto and Menlo
Park, approximately 0.7 miles to the south of the project area. Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve is
approximately 2.0 miles to the south of the project area, located in City of Palo Alto.
4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Beneficial
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Will the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility will occur
or be accelerated?
1,2,31,
32,33
2) 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?
1
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 115 September 2016
4.15.2.1 Impacts to Recreational Facilities
The proposed trail would increase recreational facilities within East Palo Alto and complete a
missing connection in the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The proposed project would connect to the existing Bay Trail segment at the Ravenswood Open
Space Preserve, creating an unbroken off-street route that would enhance the recreational experience,
a beneficial impact. The proposed project is one of the few un-built segments of the Bay Trail
between Redwood City and Alviso, and its completion would link approximately 80 miles of
uninterrupted shoreline trail along the Peninsula and South Bay segments of the Bay Trail and
crossing via the Dumbarton Bridge to the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
and Coyote Hills Park in Newark and Fremont in the East Bay segments. These 80 miles of Bay
Trail also extend further inland by linking to three major regional connector trails: the Alameda
County Regional Trail along Alameda Creek, the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and the San
Tomas Aquino Creek Trail in Santa Clara.
4.15.3 Conclusion
The project itself is a recreational facility that would connect to, and thereby improve the utility of,
existing parks and trails. (Beneficial Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 116 September 2016
4.16 TRANSPORTATION
4.16.1 Setting
4.16.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area, including San Mateo County. MTC is charged with regularly updating the
Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit,
highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. The most recent
edition of the Regional Transportation Plan, known as Transportation 2035, was adopted in April
2009. Transportation 2035 directs funding for various projects in San Mateo County, including
pavement maintenance for local streets, improvement programs for Caltrain, SamTrans, and BART,
countywide shuttle service programs, and U.S. 101 operational improvements near State Route (SR)
92.
Congestion Management Program
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is the designated
Congestion Management Agency in San Mateo County. The Congestion Management Program
(CMP) prioritizes the use of state and federal funding for roadway system improvements. The
purpose of the CMP is to identify strategies to respond to future transportation needs, develop
procedures to alleviate and control congestion, and promote countywide solutions. The CMP is
required to be consistent with the MTC planning process that includes regional goals, policies, and
projects for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The 2011 CMP, which is developed
to be consistent with MTC’s Transportation 2035 Plan, provides updated program information and
performance monitoring results for the CMP roadway system. The CMP roadway system is
comprised of 53 roadway segments and 16 intersections, including all of the State highways within
the County.
The C/CAG CMP requires a transportation analysis to be prepared when a project would add 100 or
more peak-hour trips to the roadway network. Projects that generate fewer than 100 trips in either
peak-hour are presumed to have a less than significant impact on the level -of-service (LOS) at
intersections that would carry project traffic. The C/CAG has defined Transportation Demand
Management Strategies to provide mitigation methods to reduce the number of net new vehicle trips
generated by new developments. These guidelines are intended to ensure the implementation of
programs to reduce the number of peak hour vehicle trips generated by new developments.
SFPUC Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy
for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties
As part of its utility system, the SFPUC operates and maintains hundreds of miles of water pipelines
and provides public use on their water pipeline property or right-of-way (ROW), consistent with their
existing plans and policies. The Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Policies help inform how and
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 117 September 2016
in which instances the ROW can serve the needs of third parties – including public agencies, private
parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers seeding to provide recreational and other use
opportunities to local communities.
In terms of traffic and access, the SFPUC will consider trail proposals when a multi-jurisdictional
entity presents a plan to incorporate specific ROW parcels into a fully connected trail. Licensed trail
segments next to unlicensed parcels may create a trail corridor that poses liability to the SFPUC. The
SFPUC will only consider trail proposals where the trail would not continue onto, or encourage entry
into, another ROW parcel without a trail and the trail otherwise meets all SFPUC license
requirements.
The trail project would restripe the existing service road to provide for a pedestrian/bicycle trail and
would continue to accommodate SFPUC service vehicles. The proposed trail project would not
affect the operation or accessibility of the adjacent SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot. The proposed
trail would include signage informing users that the SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot is not open to
the public and fencing or other a physical barrier to prevent trail users from accessing SFPUC
facilities. For these reasons, the project is consistent with SFPUC policies related to access and types
of recreational uses.
4.16.1.2 Roadway Network
University Avenue (SR 109) is a north/south arterial that extends from the Stanford University
campus in Palo Alto to SR 84 north of East Palo Alto where it terminates. In the project area,
University Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway. Bicycle lanes are striped on University Avenue
between Bayfront Expressway (SR 84) and East Bayshore. There are no sidewalks on University
Avenue north of Notre Dame Avenue.
U.S. 101 is a north/south freeway that extends from San Francisco through San Mateo and Santa
Clara Counties. In the project vicinity, U.S. 101 is eight lanes wide and includes two High
Occupancy Vehicle lanes. There are full-access interchanges at University Avenue and Willow Road
that provide access to the project area.
4.16.1.3 Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project area consist primarily of hiking, equestrian, and biking
opportunities on levee trails in the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and in the Palo Alto Baylands
Nature Preserve. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Trail runs along the western boundary of the
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when
complete, would encircle the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 500-mile network
of bicycling and hiking trails. To date, approximately 340 miles of the alignment have been
completed.26 In the project vicinity, the proposed project is one of the few un-built segments of the
Bay Trail between Redwood City and Alviso. Approximately 80 miles of shoreline trail are found on
the Peninsula and South Bay, crossing via the Dumbarton Bridge to Newark and Fremont in the East
26 Association of Bay Area Governments. San Francisco Bay Trail. 1999. Available at:
<http://www.baytrail.org/overview.html> Accessed October 31, 2012.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 118 September 2016
Bay. These 80 miles of Bay Trail also extend further inland by linking to three major regional
connector trails: the Alameda County Regional Trail along Alameda Creek, the Stevens Creek Trail
in Mountain View and the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail in Santa Clara.27 In recent years, these
trails have provided a small but growing commuting alternative for workers bicycling to j ob centers
in the Peninsula and South Bay.
Local bicycle access to the project area is provided by bicycle lanes on Bay Road and University
Avenue. Regional bicycle access to the project area is provided by the Dumbarton Bridge bicycle
path and connecting paths through Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and the Palo Alto Baylands
Nature Preserve.
4.16.1.4 Existing Transit Service
Bus service in East Palo Alto is operated by SamTrans. Commuter rail service (Caltrain) is provided
from San Francisco to Gilroy by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. SamTrans also
provides a shuttle service that serves East Palo Alto and terminates at the Palo Alto Caltrain station.
Bus routes in the vicinity of the project site include the 280 Line which provides service between the
Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto and Purdue/Fordham in East Palo Alto via University
Avenue, Donohoe Street, and Pulgas Avenue and the 296 Line which provides service between East
Palo Alto and the Redwood City Caltrain station via Middlefield Road, Willow Road, Bay Road, and
Clarke Avenue. The 297 Line can be utilized via transfer to access the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and
the Redwood City Caltrain Station via University Avenue, Newbridge Street, and Willow Road. The
East Palo Alto Community Shuttle provides service throughout East Palo Alto and operates on Pulgas
Avenue, Bay Road, East Bayshore Road, Illinois Avenue, and Notre Dame Avenue.
The Dumbarton Express Shuttle provides service between Palo Alto and the Union City BART
Station via two different routes: DB and DB1. Both routes operate on Willow Road and connect to
U.S. 101. The nearest stops to the project area are on Willow Road and are approximately 0.8 miles
to the west of the project area.28
27 San Francisco Bay Trail Project. San Francisco Peninsula Map. Available at:
<http://www.baytrail.org/maps/SF_Peninsula.pdf>. South Bay Map. Available at:
<http://www.baytrail.org/maps/South_Bay.pdf>. Accessed July 9, 2015.
28 The Dumbarton Express. Available at: <http://dumbartonexpress.com/route-map-2/>. Accessed July 9, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 119 September 2016
4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1,2,3,4,5,
2) Conflict with an applicable
congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
1,34,35
3) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
1,20
Would the project:
4) Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible land uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
1
5) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
1,4,5,21
6) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities?
1,3,4,5
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 120 September 2016
4.16.2.1 Transportation Impacts
Impacts Associated with Project-Generated Traffic
The San Mateo County CMP requires a transportation analysis to be prepared when a project would
add 100 or more peak-hour vehicle trips to the roadway network.29 Projects that generate fewer than
100 trips in either peak-hour would be presumed to have a less than significant impact on the level-
of-service (LOS) at intersections that would carry project traffic.
The project consists of the construction of a trail that would connect to other trails for use by
bicyclists and pedestrians, which would not generate peak-hour vehicle trips. Operation of the trail
would include occasional vehicle trips associated with MROSD ranger patrols and facilities
maintenance staff. Most of these trips are already existing in conjunction with the ongoing operation
of the existing Bay Trail segments and the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. The number of any
new trips that would occur in the peak-hours would be less than 10. The project, therefore, would
not result in a significant impact due to increased traffic.
Construction of the proposed project, which is a missing link in the Bay Trail between the existing
on-street bicycle lane on University Avenue and the existing unpaved multipurpose trail in the
MROSD’s Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, would increase bicycle commuting within the project
area. In addition, the extension of trail hours from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. encourages commuters to utilize
the trail connection, further reducing vehicle trips in the project area. This would be a beneficial
impact of the proposed project.
Transit Impacts
Some bicyclists and pedestrians using the proposed trail could decide to utilize existing SamTrans
bus routes to access the area, but this number is expected to be minimal. The trail itself would not
impede or adversely affect any transit facilities (e.g., bus stops). Further, the trail would connect to
other trails and bike lanes, which would facilitate access to transit services by bicyclists and
pedestrians. The project would not, therefore, result in significant adverse impacts to transit.
Impacts to Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed trail is a bicycle and pedestrian improvement project that will facilitate usage of the
Bay Trail, consistent with the Bay Trail Plan. This would be a beneficial impact.
Impacts to Aircraft Operations
There are no airport safety zones that encompass the proposed trail alignment. The proposed project
would not create light or glare that would interfere with aircraft operations. Further, the construction
and operation of the trail would not result in impacts to air traffic patterns, mapping or
communication and would, therefore, not constitute a hazard to aviation.
29 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Congestion Management
Program. November 2011.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 121 September 2016
Impacts Associated with Road or Design Hazards
A portion of the trail is proposed on the SFPUC service road which provides access to the SFPUC
Ravenswood Valve Lot, north of the project site. The trail project would restripe the existing service
road to provide for a pedestrian/bicycle trail and would continue to accommodate SFPUC service
vehicles. The proposed trail project would not affect the operation or accessibility of the adjacent
SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot, as trail regulations enforced by MROSD personnel would prohibit
trail users from entering SFPUC’s property, and the project would include a physical barrier to
prevent trail users from accessing SFPUC facilities. The SFPUC Bay Tunnel Pipeline construction is
complete; therefore, the proposed trail construction would not interfere with the Bay Tunnel Pipeline
construction project.
The proposed project does not propose to make changes to roadways that would create road hazards
or alter design features developed to mitigate such hazards.
Emergency Response Impacts
As described in Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Material, the proposed project would not
interfere with emergency response access within the project area. During construction of the
proposed trail, construction trucks and equipment would utilize the SFPUC service road to access the
construction area. It is possible that access from Fordham Street to construct the paved segment of
the trail in the upland areas could also be used by construction workers. Fordham Street, however, is
a dead-end roadway and is not an evacuation route.
4.16.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an adverse transportation impact. (No
Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 122 September 2016
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Setting
4.17.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 - Assembly Bill (AB) 939
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) was signed into law on September 29,
1989. The Act requires all California cities, counties, and approved regional solid waste
management agencies, responsible for enacting plans and implementing programs, to divert 25
percent of their solid waste by 1995 and 50 percent by year 2000. Later legislation mandates the 50
percent diversion requirement be achieved every year. CalRecycle oversees and provides assistance
to local governments as they develop and implement plans to meet the mandates of AB 939 and
subsequent legislation. Local assistance staff serves as a liaison between local governments and
CalRecycle and its program areas, providing input for the development of CalRecycle policies
concerning local planning and implementation issues.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
Through the Urban Water Management Act of 1983 (California Water Code Section 10610 et seq.),
the California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within California to prepare and adopt
an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. The Act is intended to
support conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies at the local level. The Act requires
that total projected water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in five -year
increments; that planning occur for single and multiple dry water years; and that plans include a
water recycling analysis that incorporates a description of the wastewater collection and treatment
system within the agency’s service area, along with current and potential recycled water uses.
The 2010 UWMP prepared by the City of East Palo Alto and 2010 UWMP (amended in November
2014) prepared by the City of Menlo Park describe water supply sources, historical and projected
water use, and existing water supply and demand within the city boundary. These UWMPs fulfill the
requirements of the California Urban Water Management Planning Act.
SFPUC Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy
for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties
As part of its utility system, the SFPUC operates and maintains hundreds of miles of water pipelines
and provides public use on their water pipeline property or right-of-way (ROW), consistent with their
existing plans and policies. The Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Policies help inform how and
in which instances the ROW can serve the needs of third parties – including public agencies, private
parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers seeding to provide recreational and other use
opportunities to local communities.
In terms of utilities, no utilities may be installed on the SFPUC ROW running parallel to the
SFPUC’s pipelines, above or below grade. In addition, all landscaping shall be maintained to ensure
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 123 September 2016
water efficiency. Plantings shall be chosen and arranged taking into account climate, soils, sun
exposure, and irrigation needs. The use of local native plant species and recycled (reclaimed) water
is encouraged. Water runoff due to overspray, broken irrigation systems, or other conditions is
prohibited. The proposed project does not include the installation of any utilities. The only plantings
that would occur within SFPUC ROW would be the seeding of disturbed upland areas with native
grass seed or any revegetation required by permit requirements or mitigation. Recycled (reclaimed)
water would not be utilized for landscape irrigation or construction BMPS due to the sensitive nature
of wetland habitats on the site and within the project area.
4.17.1.2 Existing Utilities and Service Systems
Water Service
The municipal water supply to the project area is provided by the American Water Enterprises under
contract with the City of East Palo Alto, Department of Public Works. The source of the water
supply comes from the SFPUC Hetch Hetchy water supply and distribution system.30 The Hetch
Hetchy Aqueduct right-of-way crosses the project site and enters the SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot
(north of the project site). The Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct carries water from Yosemite National Park to
San Francisco and other cities on the peninsula including East Palo Alto.
Sanitary Sewer/Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater collection and conveyance services for the project area are provided by the West Bay
Sanitation District. The West Bay Sanitation District delivers its wastewater to the Silicon Valley
Clean Water Treatment Plant, which provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of
wastewater. The Treatment Plant has a permitted treatment capacity of 29 million gallons per day
(mgd) for dry weather flow and has a peak wet weather flow design capacity of 71 mgd.31
Storm Drainage System
The City of East Palo Alto maintains the storm drain systems within its municipal boundaries.
Currently, there are no stormwater control features within the proposed project site.
Solid Waste
Solid waste and recyclable materials from East Palo Alto are initially transported to the transfer
station (Shoreway Environmental Center) in San Carlos for processing and shipment.32 The transfer
station is permitted by CalRecycle to receive 3,000 tons per day (tpd)of refuse and recycles and
30 City of East Palo Alto. 2012. Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan Final EIR. September 2012.
31 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. South Bayside System Authority Wastewater
Treatment Plant and its Associated Wastewater Collection System. Order No. R2-2012-0062, NPDES No.
CA0038369. August 2012.
32 RethinkWaste. Service Providers. Available at: <http://www.rethinkwaste.org/about/service-providers>.
Accessed July 10, 2015.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 124 September 2016
currently receives approximately 772 tpd.33 CalRecycle has established a 75 percent statewide
recycling goal under AB 341, which was adopted in January 2012. Prior to the adoption of AB 341,
the statewide recycling goal was 50 percent.34
Solid waste that is not diverted from the landfill is compacted at the transfer station and transported
to Ox Mountain Landfill near the City of Half Moon Bay. The landfill is permitted by CalRecycle to
receive 3,598 tpd or approximately 1.15 million tons per year of solid waste, and has a permitted
maximum total solid waste capacity of approximately 69 million cubic yards.
Electric and Gas Service
Electric and natural gas services are provided to East Palo Alto by the Pacific Gas & Electric
Company (PG&E). Overhead PG&E high voltage electric transmission lines pass over the eastern
portion of the proposed trail alignment.
4.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
1,2,36
2) 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?
1,2,36
Would the project:
3) Require or result in the construction of
new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
1
4) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
1,2
33 City of Menlo Park. 2011. Menlo Park Facebook Campus Project. Draft EIR. December.
34 CalRecycle. California’s 75 Percent Initiative: Defining the Future . May 2015. Available at:
<http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/75Percent/>.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 125 September 2016
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
5) 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?
1,2
6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1,2,37,38
39
4.17.2.1 Utilities and Service System Impacts
The project, which is limited to the construction of a trail, would not use water except for
construction and for short-term irrigation of native plant landscaping during their initial
establishment period.
A portion of the trail is proposed on the SFPUC service road which provides access to the SFPUC
Ravenswood Valve Lot, north of the project site. The trail project would restripe the existing service
road to provide for a 10-foot paved multi-use trail and a four-foot gravel shoulder that would
continue to accommodate SFPUC service vehicles. The proposed trail project would not affect the
operation or accessibility of the adjacent SFPUC Ravenswood Valve Lot. In addition, MROSD will
take steps, as directed by SFPUC engineers, to ensure that construction activities (including the use
of heavy equipment such as cranes and large trucks to transport bridge segments) will not damage the
SFPUC's water transmission pipelines or other water utility infrastructure. Trail regulations would
prohibit trail users from entering SFPUC’s property, and the project would include a physical barrier
to prevent trail users from accessing SFPUC facilities. With the SFPUC’s Bay Tunnel Pipeline
project recently completed, construction of the proposed trail construction would not interfere with
that SFPUC project.
The project would not generate any wastewater and would not result in the need for new wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
PG&E currently provides gas and electric service to the project area. No additional lighting is
proposed at the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not increase electricity and natural
gas use at the site and would not result in the need for new or expanded infrastructure. Development
of the project would not adversely affect the electrical or gas system.
The operation of the trail would not generate solid waste. New landfill facilities would not need to
be constructed to service the proposed project.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 126 September 2016
4.17.3 Conclusion
The project would not adversely utilities or service systems. (No Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 127 September 2016
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
1) 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?
1,2,3,15,
17
2) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
1
3) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals to
the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals?
1,2,3
4) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1
4.18.1 Project Impacts
Under Section 15065(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, a finding of significance is required if a project
“has the potential to substantially 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.”
The project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resource s, geology and
soils, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services,
recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems (refer to Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.10, 4.11,
4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, and 4.17, respectively)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 128 September 2016
With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the proposed project and described
in the air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and
hydrology and water quality sections (refer to Sections 4.3 Air Quality, 4.4 Biological Resources, 4.5
Cultural Resources, 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, and
4.12 Noise), the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
Thus, the project will not substantially 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.
4.18.2 Short-term Environmental Goals vs. Long-term Environmental Goals
As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(2), a lead agency shall find that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has
the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals.
The proposed project is the completion of a missing gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail and would
not result in the conversion of an undeveloped use to urban uses or otherwise commit resources in a
wasteful or inefficient manner. Although the proposed project would require the temporary
disturbance of developed and undeveloped land as well as the irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources during the trail construction, it is anticipated that these short-term effects
would be substantially off-set by the long-term improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian
transportation system that will be provided by the project.
4.18.3 Cumulative Impacts
Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have
a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has
potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As
defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and t he effects of probable future
projects.” Using this definition, a project that has no impact in a given impact category cannot have
a cumulatively considerable contribution because its contribution is zero.
The project evaluated in this Initial Study is limited to the construction of a 3,000-foot segment of the
Bay Trail that will close an existing gap in the planned Bay Trail system. Due to the nature of this
proposed project, many types of impacts that are frequently associated with development project s
(e.g., housing, offices, commercial uses, etc.) will not occur. For example, per the analyses found
throughout Section 4 of this Initial Study, the operation of the trail will have no adverse impacts on
agricultural lands, air quality, cultural resources, GHGs, hazardous materials, land use, mineral
resources, population and housing, recreation, transportation, and utilities. Therefore, by definition,
there would be no cumulative impacts in any of these categories.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 129 September 2016
Some of the short-term, construction-related, impacts of the project (e.g., dust, noise, water quality)
could combine with those of other projects being constructed in the area at the same time to become
significant. In this case, however, that outcome would not occur since there are no other projects
proposed in the same general area.
As described in Section 4.12.2.1, the project will have minimal noise impacts associated with
conversations between people biking and walking on the trail. Because these noises will be localized,
intermittent, and at low levels that will not impact many nearby residences, they would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Section 4.4, the project will affect sensitive biological resources in both the short - and long-term.
These impacts, however, would not result in a cumulatively significant loss of such resources
because all projects, including the proposed trail, are required to comply with the “no net loss”
policies of various permitting agencies. Where loss of habitat occurs, mitigation must be provide d
typically at ratios ranging between 1:1 and 3:1 (mitigation acreage: impact acreage), depending upon
the habitat value of the lost acreage. In addition, mitigation measures ensure construction of the
project will not harm protected species in the project area. As a result, the proposed project’s
contribution to cumulative biological impacts will not be cumulatively considerable.
4.18.4 Direct or Indirect Adverse Effects on Human Beings
Consistent with Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project
may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project
has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be
treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This factor relates to adverse changes
to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals. While
changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of
the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include air quality,
hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. However, implementation of mitigation measures would
reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. No other direct or indirect adverse effects on
human beings have been identified.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 130 September 2016
CHECKLIST SOURCES
1. CEQA Guidelines - Environmental Thresholds (professional judgment and expertise and
review of project plans).
2. City of East Palo Alto. 2012. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ravenswood/4
Corners Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan. September.
3. City of East Palo Alto. 2012. Ravenswood/4 Corners Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Specific Plan. September.
4. City of East Palo Alto. 1999. General Plan. December.
5. City of Menlo Park. 1994. General Plan. December. (Amended December 2010).
6. City of East Palo Alto. 2003. Zoning Ordinance. 2002 Edition. Last Updated October 2003.
Available at: < http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/municode.html>. Accessed November 26,
2012.
7. California Department of Transportation. 2012. California Scenic Highway Program.
Available at: <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm>.
Accessed July 15, 2015.
8. City of East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto Municipal Code. Enacted July 2011. Available at:
<http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16328&stateID=5&statename=California >.
Accessed: July 15, 2015.
9. City of Menlo Park. 2012. Menlo Park Municipal Code. Available at:
<http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/menlopark/>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
10. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2011. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2012.
11. City of Menlo Park. 2012. Zoning Ordinance. Effective July 2012. Available at:
<http://www.menlopark.org/projects/comdev_zmd.htm>. Accessed November 2012.
12. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan – Volume I
and Volume II. September.
13. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air
Quality Guidelines. May.
14. City of East Palo Alto. 2011. City of East Palo Alto Climate Action Plan: Twenty-Three
Actions to Address Our Changing Climate. September.
15. Biotic Resources Group. 2012. Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood University Avenue to
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. Biological Report. November.
16. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2007. San Francisco Bay
Plan. Available at: < http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/laws_plans/plans/sfbay_plan.shtml>. Accessed
November 26, 2012.
17. Holman and Associates. 2012. Cultural Resources Research for the Proposed Bay Trail at
Ravenswood Project, East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California. May.
18. California Geological Survey. 1974. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Palo Alto
Quadrangle. Official Map. July.
19. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Available
at: <http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/>. Accessed November 27, 2012.
20. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. 2008. Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Santa Clara County. Palo Alto Airport. November.
21. City of East Palo Alto. 2011. Emergency Operation Plan V1. January.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 131 September 2016
22. CAL FIRE. 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, As
Recommended by CAL FIRE. San Mateo County. Available at:
<http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_mateo/fhszl_map.41.pdf>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
23. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Map,
Community-Panel Number 06081C0307E. October.
24. California Emergency Management Agency (CEMA). California Geological Survey.
Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Redwood Point Quadrangle and Palo Alto
Quadrangle. June 2009. Available at:
<http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/SanMateo/
Documents/Tsunami_Inundation_RedwoodPointPaloAlto_Quads_SanMateo.pdf >. Accessed
July 15, 2015.
25. ABAG. 1999. San Francisco Bay Trail Plan. Available at:
<http://www.baytrail.org/baytrailplan.html>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
26. ABAG. 2009. Projections and Priorities 2009. Building Momentum. San Francisco Bay Area
Population, Household and Job Forecasts.
27. Menlo Park Fire Protection District. 2008. Menlo Park Fire Protection District Information.
Available at <http://www.menlofire.org/about%20us.html>. Accessed September 27, 2012.
28. City of East Palo Alto Police Department. 2011 – Crime Statistical Report. Available at:
<http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/police/pdf/2011_Ten_Year_Crime_Statistcal_Charts.pdf >.
Accessed September 27, 2012.
29. Ravenswood City School District (RCSD). RCSD Schools. Available at:
<http://www.ravenswood.k12.ca.us/domain/47>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
30. San Mateo County Library. 2012. East Palo Alto Library. Available at:
<http://www.smcl.org/en/content/east-palo-alto>. Accessed November 27, 2012.
31. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). 2000. San Mateo
County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan. October.
32. City of East Palo Alto. 2003. East Palo Alto Recreation and Community Services Strategic
Plan. Community Voices Shaping Recreation Choices. April
33. City of East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency. 2007. East Palo Alto Bay Access Master Plan.
May.
34. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2009. Transportation 2035 Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area. Final. April.
35. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). 2011. San Mateo
County Congestion Management Plan. November.
36. City of East Palo Alto. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
37. RethinkWaste. Service Providers. Available at: <http://www.rethinkwaste.org/about/service-
providers>. Accessed July 10, 2015
38. City of Menlo Park. 2011. Menlo Park Facebook Campus Project. Draft EIR. December.
39. CalRecycle. California’s 75 Percent Initiative: Defining the Future. May 2015. Available at:
<http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/75Percent/>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 132 September 2016
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2011. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Available at:
<http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/>. Accessed November 27, 2012.
--. 1995. Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. May.
--. 2009. Projections and Priorities 2009. Building Momentum. San Francisco Bay Area
Population, Household and Job Forecasts.
--. 1999. San Francisco Bay Trail Plan. Available at: <http://www.baytrail.org/baytrailplan.html>.
Accessed July 15, 2015.
--. 2011. San Francisco Bay Trail South Bay Map, 2011. Available at:
<http://www.baytrail.org/Maps/South_Bay.pdf>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
--. 2005. The San Francisco Bay Trail Project Gap Analysis Study. August.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan – Volume I and
Volume II. September.
--. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.
--. 2010. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Pages 2-5, 3-3, and 3-4.
June.
--. 2009. California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds Options and Justification Report.
October.
--. 2008. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. December.
Biotic Resources Group. 2012. Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood University Avenue to
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. Biological Report. November.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas
Inventory for 2000-2013 - by Sector and Activity. Last Updated April 2015.
--. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change, December.
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2009. Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast.
March.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. 1974 . Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Palo Alto Quadrangle. Official Map. July.
Section 5.0 References
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 133 September 2016
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program. 2011. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2010. October.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically
by Life Form. September. Available at:
<http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp>. Accessed July 13, 2015.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2012. CAL FIRE. Available at:
<http://www.fire.ca.gov/>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
--. 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, As Recommended by
CAL FIRE. San Mateo County. November. Available at:
<http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_mateo/fhszl_map.41.pdf>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
Caltrans. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. San Mateo County. Available at:
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/>. Accessed July 8, 2015.
California Emergency Management Agency (CEMA). California Geological Survey. Tsunami
Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Redwood Point Quadrangle and Palo Alto Quadrangle.
June 2009. Available at:
<http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/SanMateo/Docu
ments/Tsunami_Inundation_RedwoodPointPaloAlto_Quads_SanMateo.pdf >. Accessed July 15,
2015.
CalRecycle. California’s 75 Percent Initiative: Defining the Future. May 2015. Available at:
<http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/75Percent/>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). 2011. San Mateo County
Congestion Management Plan. November.
--. 2000. San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan. October.
City and County of San Francisco Planning Department (SFGOV). 2009. San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission Bay Division Pipeline Reliability Upgrade Project Final Environmental Impact
Report. July.
City of East Palo Alto. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
--. 2011. City of East Palo Alto Climate Action Plan: Twenty-Three Actions to Address Our
Changing Climate. September.
--. 2010. Cooley Landing Park. Initial Study. December.
--. 2011. East Palo Alto Municipal Code. Enacted July 2011. Available at:
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16328&stateID=5&statename=California .
Accessed: November 26, 2012.
Section 5.0 References
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 134 September 2016
--. 2003. East Palo Alto Recreation and Community Services Strategic Plan. Community Voices
Shaping Recreation Choices. April.
--. 2011. Emergency Operation Plan V1. January.
--. 1999. General Plan. December.
--. 2012. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ravenswood/4 Corners Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Specific Plan. September.
--. 2012. Ravenswood/4 Corners Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan. September.
--. 2003. Zoning Ordinance. 2002 Edition. Last Updated October 2003. Available at:
<http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/municode.html>. Accessed November 26, 2012.
City of East Palo Alto Police Department. 2011 – Crime Statistical Report. Available at:
<http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/police/pdf/2011_Ten_Year_Crime_Statistcal_Charts.pdf >.
Accessed September 27, 2012.
City of East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency. 2007. East Palo Alto Bay Access Master Plan. May.
City of Menlo Park. 2005. Final Report Bay Trail Feasibility Study. January.
--. 1994. General Plan. December.
--. 2011. Menlo Park Facebook Campus Project. Draft EIR. December.
--. 2012. Menlo Park Municipal Code. Available at:
<http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/menlopark/>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
--. 2012. Zoning Ordinance. Effective July 2012. Available at:
<http://www.menlopark.org/projects/comdev_zmd.htm>. Accessed November 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community-
Panel Number 06081C0307E. October.
Holman and Associates. 2012. Cultural Resources Research for the Proposed Bay Trail at
Ravenswood Project, East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California. May.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District. 2008. Menlo Park Fire Protection District Information.
Available at <http://www.menlofire.org/about%20us.html>. Accessed September 27, 2012.
Section 5.0 References
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 135 September 2016
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2009. Transportation 2035 Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area. Final. April.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD). 1990. Comprehensive Use and Management
Plan for Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. April.
Ravenswood City School District (RCSD). RCSD Schools. Available at:
<http://www.ravenswood.k12.ca.us/domain/47>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2007. San Francisco Bay Plan.
Available at: < http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/laws_plans/plans/sfbay_plan.shtml>. Accessed July 15,
2015.
--. 2011. Final Background Report: Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaption in San
Francisco Bay and on the Shoreline, Figure 1.8, October.
<http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/proposed_bay_plan/bp_amend_1-08.shtml>
--. 2005. Shoreline Spaces - Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay. April
San Mateo County. 2005. Hazards Mitigation Maps, Dam Failure Inundation Areas. April.
Available at:
<http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/10/35/436349068dam_Areas2.pdf >.
Accessed July 15, 2015.
San Mateo County Library. East Palo Alto Library. Available at:
<http://www.smcl.org/en/content/east-palo-alto>. Accessed July 15, 2015.
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. 2008. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa
Clara County. Palo Alto Airport. November.
California, State of, Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Natural Diversity Data Base, Natural
Communities. Rarefind Program.
San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory. 2014. Western snowy plover monitoring in the San Francisco
Bay, Annual Report 2014. Report prepared for Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
Refuge and CDFW, Dec 3, 2014.
Olofsen Environmental, Inc. 2015. California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary
Invasive Spartina Project 2015. Report prepared for The State Coastal Conservancy, Sept. 24,
2015. (Survey data provided by Bluepoint Conservation Science (PRBO), Don Edwards National
Wildlife Refuge, and Avocet Research Assoc.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2006. Marsh studies in South San Francisco Bay; 2005-2008. California
Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Survey Report. Unpublished project report 477-28. H. T.
Harvey & Associates, Los Gatos, California.
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Draft Initial Study
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 136 September 2016
SECTION 6.0 AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS
AUTHORS: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Gretchen Laustsen, Open Space Planner III
CONSULTANTS: David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
Jodi Starbird, Principal Project Manager
Julie Wright, Senior Project Manager
Amber Sharpe, Assistant Project Manager
Zach Dill, Graphic Artist
Biotic Resources Group with Dana Bland & Associates
Ecological Consultants
Kathleen Lyons, Plant Ecologist
Dana Bland, Wildlife Biologist
Callander Associates, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Architects
Brian Fletcher, Principal
Nathan Ritchie, Project Designer
Holman & Associates
Archaeological Consultants
Miley Holman, Principal
BKF Engineers
Project Civil Engineers
Jason Mansfield, Civil Engineer
Biggs Cardosa
Project Structural Engineers
Anthony Notaro, Structural Engineer
Appendix A:
Biological Report and Biological Report
Appendix A – Wetland Evaluation
Biotic Resources Group
2551 S. Rodeo Gulch Road #12 Soquel, California 95073 (831) 476-4803 brg@cruzio.com
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood
University Avenue to Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
Updated Conceptual Trail Alignment
Updated Biological Report
Prepared for:
David J. Powers & Associates
Attn: Amber Sharpe
Prepared by:
Biotic Resources Group
Kathleen Lyons, Plant Ecologist
With
Dana Bland & Associates
Dana Bland, Wildlife Biologist
December 8, 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 1 December 8, 2014
BAY TRAIL CONCEPT PLAN AT RAVENSWOOD
UNIVERSITY AVENUE TO RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
UPDATED CONCEPTURAL TRAIL ALIGNMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Bay Trail extension from University Avenue to Ravenswood Open Space Preserve is located
within the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The preferred trail alignment (dated July 2014) is
proposed to be located south of the Dumbarton Railroad Corridor (SamTrans) on lands owned by the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(MROSD). An alternative alignment dated July 2014) would also be located south of the Dumbarton
Railroad Corridor (SamTrans) and would be placed on lands owned by the State of California
(CalTrans), the SFPUC and MROSD. The location of the preferred and alternative alignment, depicted
on the USGS Palo Alto quadrangle, is shown on Figure 1.
The proposed project is to obtain a public trail easement and eventually construct the trail. The trail is
intended to be a multi use trail to provide a connection from an existing segment of the Bay Trail within
the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve to University Avenue.
The preferred alignment will include use of an existing paved SFPUC service road, a paved trail within
upland grassland, and a boardwalk-style raised trail and a bridge over wetlands. From west to east, this
alignment would utilize the existing SFPUC service road from University Avenue for approximately
1,500 linear feet, after which the trail would traverse approximately 600 linear feet of upland grassland,
approximately 200 linear feet of coastal marsh by a raised boardwalk and bridge, 300 linear feet of
additional grassland and finally approximately 600 linear feet of coastal salt marsh to its terminus with
the existing Bay Trail within Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (Proposed Conceptual Trail Alignment,
Callander Associates, Updated July 2014). Along the existing service road, the trail is proposed to be 10-
12 feet in width; other portions of the trail will be 8-10 feet wide.
From west to east, the alternative alignment proposes a bridge over wetlands near University Avenue for
approximately 300 linear feet (on CalTrans land), use of the existing paved SFPUC service road for
approximately 1,200 linear feet, a paved trail traversing approximately 200 linear feet of upland
grassland, approximately 200 feet for a bridge over coastal marsh, 400 linear feet of additional grassland
and approximately 600 linear feet boardwalk-style raised trail above the coastal salt marsh to its terminus
with the existing Bay Trail within Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (Proposed Conceptual Trail
Alignment, Callander Associates, Updated July 2014).
An assessment of the biotic resources of the proposed trail route area was conducted during a site survey in
April 2011. A subsequent field assessment was conducted in December 2014 to re-evaluate the area and to
review the updated trail alignments. The focus of the field assessment was to identify plant community
types/habitat conditions within the project area and identify potential sensitive biotic resources within the
project area that may be affected by the proposed trail development.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 2 December 8, 2014
Specific tasks conducted for this study include:
Characterize the major plant communities within the project area;
Identify potential sensitive biotic resources, including plant and wildlife species of concern,
within the project area;
Evaluate the potential effects of the proposed trail on sensitive biotic resources and recommend
measures to avoid or reduce such impacts.
Intended Use of this Report
The findings presented in this biological report are intended for the sole use of David J. Powers &
Associates, Inc. in evaluating the proposed trail project. The findings presented by the Biotic Resources
Group in this report are for information and feasibility planning purposes only; they are not intended to
represent the interpretation of any State, Federal or City laws or ordinances pertaining to permitting
actions within sensitive habitat or endangered species. The interpretation of such laws and/or ordinances
is the responsibility of the applicable governing body.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 3 December 8, 2014
Figure 1. Location of Project
(USGS Palo Alto Quadrangle)
Approximate Study Area
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 4 December 8, 2014
2.0 EXISTING BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.1 METHODOLOGY
The biotic resources of the proposed Bay Trail - University Avenue to Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
project area were assessed through field observations on April 27, 2011 and December 3, 2014. In 2011,
Kathleen Lyons, plant ecologist, and Dana Bland, wildlife biologist, viewed the general location of the trail
alignment, as well as adjacent areas. Kathleen Lyons conducted a second assessment on December 3, 2014.
Viewing was conducted from various locations along the preferred and alternative alignments the railroad
line and other access points within lands owned by CalTrans, SFPUC, and MROSD. Since the trail
alignment is preliminary and the route was not flagged or otherwise identified in the field at the time of the
survey, the assessment is considered to be an evaluation of general site conditions within the project area.
To assess the potential occurrence of special status biotic resources within the project area, two electronic
databases were accessed to determine recorded occurrences of sensitive plant communities and sensitive
species. Information was obtained from the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory
and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity DataBase “RareFind” (CNDDB)
for the project’s U.S.G.S. quadrangle (Palo Alto) and surrounding quadrangles in 2012 and was rechecked
in 2014. Prior to conducting field surveys, a potential list of special status or sensitive species was prepared,
utilizing species documented in the data base search and species recently evaluated for the nearby SFPUC
Bay Tunnel Project. The Jepson Manual (2012) was the principal taxonomic reference used for the
botanical work. Previous reports for the greater project area were also reviewed, such as environmental
documents prepared for the nearby SFPUC Bay Tunnel project (e.g., Bay Division Pipeline Reliability
Upgrade Project, July 2009) and a preliminary wildlife habitat assessment (Dana Bland & Associates,
2004).
This report summarizes the findings of the biotic assessment. The potential impacts of the proposed
development of the multi-use trail on sensitive biological resources are discussed below. Measures to
reduce significant impacts to a level of less-than-significant are recommended, as applicable.
2.2 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Three plant community types were observed within the project area: ruderal (weedy) grassland, ruderal
(weedy) scrub, and northern coastal salt marsh. There are also ponded areas and channels within the salt
marsh. The distribution of the habitats within the project area is depicted on Figure 2. A recent aerial image
of the project area and surrounding vegetation is depicted on Figure 3.
2.2.1 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
The low elevation plain south of the railroad line supports coastal salt marsh. This area supports a dense
growth of pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica). Associated species include salt grass (Distichlis spicata),
alkali heath (Frankenia salina), and marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta). Other species include
Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marianum ssp. gussoneanum), seablite (Suaeda sp.), and California
cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). CDFW classifies this marsh habitat as pickleweed – alkali heath mats. An
open water pond, with wetlands, is located north of the residences (University Villages) and small open
water features (small ponds and channels) occur within the marsh. Water appears to be from subsurface
flow/groundwater and a tidal connection to San Francisco Bay to the south and east (see Figure 3).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 5 December 8, 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 6 December 8, 2014
Figure 3. Aerial Image of Project Area and Surrounding Area (Aerial photo dated 10/11)
The extent of the wetlands was re-evaluated in December 2014, particularly the wetlands within the
CalTrans property near University Avenue and the wetlands on SFPUC land near University Village.
GPS points were obtained to demarcate the approximate edge of the wetlands in these locations. This
information is presented in Figures A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A. Figure 4 depicts the CalTrans wetland,
looking eastward from near University Avenue. Figures 5 and 6 depict the condition of wetlands on
SFPUC property.
Figure 4. Wetlands within CalTrans property, looking eastward, December 2014
Approximate Study Area
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 7 December 8, 2014
Figure 5. Wetlands on SFPUC land, center area, looking eastward, December 2014
Figure 6. Wetlands and ponded area on SFPUC land, looking eastward, December 2014
The northern coastal salt marsh at this site has marginal tidal connections to San Francisco Bay; most of
the marsh is ringed by a levee, as depicted on Figure 3. This likely affects the diversity of wildlife that
typically uses this habitat type, compared to the adjacent Ravenswood marsh which is directly open to
the bay. The small channels and pools within the salt marsh provide substrate and nutrients for
invertebrates, which in turn provide forage for birds and small mammals. Common native wildlife that
are expected to utilize this salt marsh include snowy egret (Egretta thula), great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), western
sandpiper (Calidris mauri), and harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis).
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 8 December 8, 2014
2.2.2 Ruderal Grassland
The edge of the railroad line, higher elevation areas south of the railroad, as well as areas along the
existing SFPUC service road support upland, weedy vegetation. The ruderal (weedy) vegetation consists
of common, non-native grasses, such as wild oat (Avena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Italian
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), canary grass (Phalaris sp.), and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros). One patch
of native grass was observed near the pond: creeping ryegrass (Elymus triticoides). Forbs are also
common and are primarily non-native. Observed forbs include wild mustard (Brassica sp.), summer
mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), iceplant (Carpobrotus sp.), wild radish (Raphanus sativa),
bull mallow (Malva neglecta), salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius), and slender/Italian thistle (Carduus
spp.).
The ruderal grassland at this site provides forage for seed and insect eating birds, as well as for small
rodents, which in turn are prey for raptors and snakes. Common bird species expected to occur in this
grassland include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), cliff
swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota), and Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephallus). Other wildlife that
commonly inhabit grasslands include Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), ground squirrel
(Spermophilus beecheyi), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). The abundance of small
mammals in grasslands attracts predators such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), coyote (Canis
latrans), and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus).
2.2.3 Ruderal Scrub
The edges of the railroad line as well as areas along the existing SFPUC service road support weedy
shrubs and herbaceous plants. This scrub is characterized by non-native shrubs, such as olive (Olea
europaea), small non-native trees, and evergreen landscape shrubs. Herbaceous plants are typical of
those found in the ruderal grassland and include wild oat, wild mustard, canary grass, ripgut brome, and
fennel. Native species are limited to California poppy (Eschscholzia californica).
The berries of shrubs and the seeds of herbaceous plants in the ruderal scrub habitat provide important
forage for wildlife. Wildlife may perch on the outer perimeter of mixed scrub to take advantage of
hunting opportunities in adjacent openings, and take cover in the denser shrub patches as needed.
Common wildlife species found in ruderal scrub include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis),
California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys).
2.3 SENSITIVE BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.3.1 Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats are defined by local, State, or Federal agencies as those habitats that support special status
species, provide important habitat values for wildlife, represent areas of unusual or regionally restricted
habitat types, and/or provide high biological diversity.
Within the project area the coastal salt marsh is considered sensitive due to its importance to animal
species and the bay ecosystem. The habitat is recognized as sensitive by state and federal agencies.
CDFW ranks pickleweed – alkali heath mats (code 52.215.09) as S3. This ranking indicates that the
vegetation type is highly imperiled. Habitats that support rare or endangered species are also considered
sensitive.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 9 December 8, 2014
2.3.2 Regulated Habitats
CDFW is a trustee agency that has jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and
Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel
or bank of any river, stream or lake which supports fish or wildlife. CDFW also regulates alterations to
ponds and impoundments; CDFW jurisdictional limits typically extend to the top of bank or to the edge
of riparian habitat if such habitat extends beyond top of bank (outer drip line), whichever is greater. The
marsh, pond and drainages within the coastal salt marsh may be within the regulatory jurisdiction of
CDFW.
Water quality in California is governed by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and
certification authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as administered by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Section 401 water quality certification program allows the State
to ensure that activities requiring a Federal permit or license comply with State water quality standards.
Water quality certification must be based on a finding that the proposed discharge will comply with
water quality standards which are in the regional board’s basin plans. The Porter-Cologne Act requires
any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste in any region that could affect the quality
of the waters of the state to file a report of waste discharge. The RWQCB issues a permit or waiver that
includes implementing water quality control plans that take into account the beneficial uses to be
protected. Waters of the State subject to RWQCB regulation extend to the top of bank, as well as
isolated water/wetland features and saline waters. The RWQCB interprets waste to include fill placed
into water bodies. The marsh, ponds and drainages within the salt marsh may be located within the
jurisdictional area of the RWQCB.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates activities within waters of the United States pursuant
to congressional acts: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (1977, as amended). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act requires a permit for any work in, over,
or under navigable waters of the United States. Navigable waters are defined as those waters subject to
the ebb and flow of the tide to the Mean High Water mark (tidal areas) or below the Ordinary High
Water mark (freshwater areas). The coastal salt marsh would be jurisdictional under current USACE
regulation.
2.3.3 Special Status Plant Species
Plant species of concern include those listed by either the Federal or State resource agencies as well as those
identified as rare by CNPS. A search of the CNPS and CNDDB inventories for the Palo Alto and
surrounding quadrangles and a review of pertinent literature, found the site to have limited resources to
support special status species. Special status plant species evaluated for the potential to occur in the project
vicinity are provided in Table 1.
Three species were found to have potential for occurrence within the project site: Congdon’s tarplant,
Hoover’s button-celery, and caper-fruited tropidocarpum. These species occur in mesic and alkaline
grasslands. Some areas of the project site, such as along the salt marsh edge or lower elevation areas within
the grasslands may provide suitable habitat; however no individuals were observed during the April 2011 or
December 2014 field visits. No special status plant species were recorded from the project area during
surveys conducted for the nearby SFPUC Bay Tunnel Project; however, CNDDB has a record of Congdon’s
tarplant from the Ravenswood area, south of the railroad tracks (occurrence #54). MROSD personnel
reported seeing Congdon’s tarplant on or near the trail alignment in July 2014 (MROSD, pers. comm.,
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 10 December 8, 2014
2014). No individuals of Congdon’s tarplant were detected during the December 2014 survey; however, this
survey was conducted outside the blooming period and any plants may have declined beyond identification
at that time of year. Portions of the project area contain suitable habitat for this species, particularly the
grassland/wetland interface.
The project area lacks specialized habitats and substrates to support many other special status species (e.g.,
serpentine endemics) (see Table 1). In addition, the weedy condition of the upland grassland reduces the
potential for many of these special status species to occur on site.
Table 1. Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Occurrence at the Bay Trail at Ravenswood Project Area
Species Status Habitat Known Occurrence on Site/Vicinity
Potential Habitat within Project Area?
Acanthomintha duttonii
San Mateo thornmint
FE, SE, List
1B.1
Valley and foothill
grassland, serpentine
Near Menlo County Club Golf Course,
likely extirpated (1915)
No suitable habitat present; not observed
Allium peninsulare var.
franciscanum
Franciscan onion
List 1B.2 Grasslands, oak
woodlands; often on
serpentine
Jasper Ridge, Page Mill Road, Farm Hill
Blvd (Stulsaft Park)
No suitable habitat; not observed
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon’s tarplant
List 1B.2 Grasslands. Often
mesic, can be alkaline
Ravenswood area of East Palo Alto, S out
RR Tracks CNDDB Occ. #54
Potential habitat at grassland/wetland
interface; observed by MROSD personnel
in project area in July 2014
Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale
Fountain thistle
FE, SE, List
1B.1
Chaparral, grassland,
serpentine
Stulsaft Park in Redwood City, E of
Woodside Glen
No suitable habitat; not observed
Cirsium praeteriens
Lost thistle
List 1A Unknown Considered extinct; historic occurrence
from Palo Alto
Not observed
Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
List 1B.2 Pine forests, coastal
scrub, often on
serpentine
Stanford University (1913)
No suitable habitat; not observed
Dirca occidentalis
Western leatherwood
List 1B.2 Upland forests,
chaparral
Jasper Ridge Area: Los Trancos Creek and
San Francisquito Creek
No suitable habitat; not observed
Eryngium aristulatum var.
hooveri
Hoover’s button celery
List 1B.2 Vernal swales, mesic
grassland
Foothills near Stanford
Potentially suitable habitat in moist
portions of grassland/pond; not observed
Fritillaria liliacea
Fragrant fritillary
List 1B.2 Woodlands, prairie,
coastal scrub
Hills near Stanford (herbarium, 1934)
No suitable habitat; not observed
Hesperolinum congestum
Marin western flax
FT, ST, List
1B.1
Chaparral, grassland,
serpentine
Stulsaft Park, Redwood City
No suitable habitat; not observed
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 11 December 8, 2014
Malacothamnus arcuatus
Arcuate bush-mallow
List 1B.2 Chaparral Jasper Ridge, Arastradero Preserve, Los
Trancos Creek
No suitable habitat; not observed
Table 1. Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Occurrence at the Bay Trail at Ravenswood Project Area
Species Status Habitat Known Occurrence on Site/Vicinity
Potential Habitat within Project Area?
Malacothamnus davidsonii
Davidson’s bush-mallow
List 1B.2 Chaparral, scrub Foothills near Stanford (1936)
No suitable habitat; not observed
Monolopia gracilens
Woodland woolythreads
List 1B.2 Grasslands,
woodlands
Jasper Ridge, Road to La Honda (1929)
No suitable habitat; not observed
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var.
chorisianus
Choris’ popcorn flower
List 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal
scrub and coastal
prairie
El Corte Madera Creek area (1898)
No suitable habitat; not observed
Trifolium amoenum
Showy rancheria clover
List 1B.1 Grasslands,
serpentine
Searsville Lake, Stanford University (1950)
No suitable habitat; not observed
Tropidocarpum capparideum
Caper-fruited tropidocarpum
List 1B.1 Valley and foothill
grassland, alkaline
Foothills near Stanford
Potentially suitable habitat in moist
portions of grassland/pond; not observed
CNPS Status:
List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California; List 1B: These plants (predominately endemic) are rare through their range and are currently
vulnerable or have a high potential for vulnerability due to limited or threatened habitat, few individuals per population, or a limited number of
populations. List 1B plants meet the definitions of Section 1901, Chapter 10 of the CDFG Code.
Federal and State Status:
T: Designated as a threatened species by the federal government or the California Fish and Game Commission
E: Designated as an endangered species by the federal government or the California Fish and Game Commission
2.3.4 Special Status Wildlife Species
Special status wildlife species include those listed, proposed or candidate species by the Federal or the State
resource agencies as well as those identified as State species of special concern. In addition, all raptor nests
are protected by Fish and Game Code, and all migratory bird nests are protected by the Federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act. Special status wildlife species were evaluated for their potential presence in the project
area as described in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Species and Their Predicted Occurrence at the Bay Trail at Ravenswood Project Area
Species Status1 Habitat Potential Occurrence On Site
Invertebrates
Bay checkerspot butterfly
Euphydryas editha bayensis
FE Grasslands with larval host plant
Sedum spathuilfolium
None. No suitable habitat on
site.
Amphibians
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
FT, CSC Ponds for breeding, grasslands
with burrows for upland habitat
None, no suitable habitat on site.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 12 December 8, 2014
Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Species and Their Predicted Occurrence at the Bay Trail at Ravenswood Project Area
Species Status1 Habitat Potential Occurrence On Site
California red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii
FT, CSC Riparian, marshes, estuaries and
ponds with still water at least into
June for breeding.
None, no suitable freshwater
habitat.
Reptiles
Western pond turtle
Actinemmys marmorata
CSC Creeks and ponds with water of
sufficient depth for escape cover,
and structure for basking;
grasslands or bare areas for
nesting.
None, no suitable freshwater
habitat.
San Francisco garter snake
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
FE, SE Creeks and ponds with adjacent
open grasslands for upland refugia
None, no suitable habitat on site.
Birds
California clapper rail
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
SE, FE Salt marshes with sloughs and
dense pickleweed
Habitat marginal; presumed
occasionally present for foraging
or resting.
California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
ST Fresh and salt water marshes with
dense vegetation
Habitat marginal; presumed
occasionally present for foraging
or resting.
Western snowy plover
Charadrius alexandrinum nivosus
FT Salt pond levees, alkali flats, sandy
beaches
None, no suitable habitat.
California least tern
Sterna antillarum browni
SE, FE Coasts and bay margins with
sandy beach, alkali flat, open bare
ground
None, no suitable habitat.
Saltmarsh common yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
CSC Nests in dense vegetation at
water’s edge of ponds, estuaries,
creeks
None, no suitable habitat on site.
Alameda song sparrow
Melospiza melodia pusillula
CSC Dense bulrush and/or cattail
vegetation adjacent to freshwater
marshes
None, no suitable habitat on site.
Mammals
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
CSC Roosts in rock outcroppings, caves,
hollow trees, mines, buildings and
bridges.
None, no suitable habitat.
Salt-marsh wandering shrew
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
CSC Medium to high salt marsh with
abundant drift wood.
Habitat marginal; presumed
present in low numbers.
Salt-marsh harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys raviventris
SE, FE Pickleweed salt marsh of San
Francisco Bay
Habitat marginal; known from
nearby Ravenswood marsh;
presumed present in low
numbers.
San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
CSC Oak, pine and riparian woodlands None, no suitable habitat.
American badger
Taxidea taxus
CSC Grasslands with friable soils None, no suitable habitat.
1 Key to status: FE=Federally listed as endangered species; FT=Federally listed as threatened species; SE=State listed as endangered species; ST=State
listed as threatened species; CSC=California species of special concern
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 13 December 8, 2014
3.0 IMPACT AND MITIGATION ANALYSIS
3.1 IMPACT CRITERIA
The thresholds of significance presented in the CEQA Guidelines were used to evaluate project impacts and
to determine if implementation of the proposed project would pose significant impacts to biological
resources. For this analysis, significant impacts are those that substantially affect, either directly or through
habitat modifications:
• A species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
• Federally protected 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;
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 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;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance;
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND SIGNIFICANCE
DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The preferred trail alignment would utilize the existing SFPUC service road from University Avenue for
approximately 1,500 linear feet, after which the trail would traverse approximately 600 linear feet of
upland grassland and 1,100 linear feet of coastal marsh to its terminus in with the existing Bay Trail
within MROSD’s Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (Callander Associates, July 2014). The alternative
alignment is similar but would traverse approximately 500 linear feet of upland grassland and 1,400 linear
feet of coastal marsh (on CalTrans and SFPUC property) (Callander Associates, July 2014).
Implementation of the preferred or alternative alignment will affect ruderal grassland or ruderal scrub
vegetation near the end of the existing service road and in an upland area north of the University Villages
residential area. Due to the prevalence of the non-native plant species within these habitat types, the
removal of ruderal grassland or ruderal scrub vegetation is not considered a significant impact to
botanical resources. The project will also include striping the existing SFPUC service road to designate
the trail route; no significant impacts to biological resources will occur from this work.
Implementation of the preferred or alternative alignment may affect special status plant species if present.
Although not observed during site surveys in April 2011 or December 2014, there is a CNDDB record
and an observation by MROSD personnel of Congdon’s tarplant within or near the trail alignment (see
Section 3.2.1, below). The project will also impact one sensitive habitat: coastal salt marsh. Impacts will
be incurred by the construction of raised boardwalks and bridges (see Section 3.2.2, below). The project
also has the potential to affect special status mammals that may be present in the coastal salt marsh and
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 14 December 8, 2014
ruderal grassland and scrub (see Section 3.2.3, below). Measures to avoid, minimize, and/or c ompensate
for these impacts to a less than significant level are outlined below.
3.2.1 Impacts to Special Status Plant Species
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) is a species with no Federal or State status but is
a species considered rare by its designation on the California Native Plant Society List 1B.2. Congdon’s
tarplant is an annual species and its distribution can change from year to year. The project area has the
potential to support Congdon’s tarplant, as the species has been recorded in the CNDDB as occurring
south of the railroad tracks and the species was detected by MROSD personnel in July 2014. If
occurrences of this species are found to occur within the trail construction alignment, disturbance to the
species and its habitat would occur. In order to avoid and minimize impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, the
following actions should be followed:
1) A survey should be conducted during the blooming period of the tarplant by a qualified biologist;
the typical blooming period is from June through October. Occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant
should be documented by GPS and demarcated on project plans and in the field. A CNDDB field
survey form should be completed and submitted to CDFW. If Congdon’s tarplant is found within
the proposed trail alignment, the trail will be re-routed to avoid the plants. If avoidance is not
feasible, qualified MROSD personnel will collect available seed from the plants in the impact
area. MROSD will develop and implement a revegetation program wherein the collected seed
will be distributed into suitable habitat within the project vicinity to achieve no net loss of
tarplant individuals.
2) If Congdon’s tarplant is found adjacent to the construction area, prior to construction, temporary
construction fencing should be installed along edge of construction to prevent any inadvertent
equipment entry or other site disturbance into areas that support Congdon’s tarplant. An
informational sheet describing the species and avoidance measures should be given to the
construction manager for dissemination to on-site workers.
3.2.2 Impacts to Sensitive Habitat
Preferred Alignment. The preferred trail alignment will traverse approximately 800 linear feet of
coastal salt marsh. A bridge and raised boardwalk are proposed to cross a low-elevation marsh
immediately south of the railroad line. The proposed bridge will span the marsh, yet abutments will
likely be required and these may be placed in wetland areas, pending review of more detailed
design documents. A raised boardwalk is also proposed to span the larger low-elevation marsh in
the easternmost portion of the study area. The boardwalk will be supported on a series of helical
anchor piers that are screwed into the ground surface. Each pier will consist of a supporting pipe (2-
1/8th inch diameter) with an attached underground helix (up to 16” in diameter). The boardwalk will
be 3-4 feet above the marsh surface. The helical anchor piers will be screwed into the ground using
portable equipment (hand-held drill); there will be no soil excavation. Permanent impacts to the
coastal salt marsh will be limited to the footprint of the supporting shafts and possible shading of
marsh vegetation from the elevated boardwalk. The helix will be underground, so no permanent
impact to the coastal salt marsh is expected from the helix. Approximately 6,400 square feet of
raised boardwalk will be constructed; however, since the boardwalk will be raised 3-4 feet above
the marsh plain not all of this area will be shaded to an extent that would preclude growth of marsh
vegetation. In addition, small areas within the marsh in this area are currently devoid of vegetation
or support open water channels; these areas will not be affected by the shade cast from the raised
boardwalk.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 15 December 8, 2014
Alternative Alignment. The alternative alignment proposes a bridge to span the marsh wetland on
the CalTrans property; abutments may be required in the wetland, pending review of more detailed
design documents. The reminder of the trail will traverse an additional 750 linear feet of marsh. A
bridge is proposed to cross a low-elevation marsh and a raised boardwalk is proposed to span the
larger low-elevation marsh in the easternmost portion of the study area (similar to the preferred
alignment). Construction of the raised boardwalk will be the same as described for the preferred
alignment.
Both alignments will result in temporary impacts to the coastal salt marsh during construction of the raised
boardwalk and the bridges. This will occur from hand crews drilling the helical anchor piers and attaching
the boardwalk structure to the piers and bridge construction. Vegetation in and adjacent to the structures
will be trampled; however, where only hand crew work is allowed, the vegetation within these areas is
expected to naturally recover after the next growing season.
For both alignments, construction of the paved trail through the central grassy area may require temporary
construction access across a small wetland area to reach the trail construction area (if an upland access route
across private property from Fordham Street within University Village is not available). Wetland
construction matting is proposed to cover any wetland areas needed for the temporary access to minimize
trampling of vegetation. Construction access may temporarily affect approximately 1,800 square feet of
coastal marsh; the matting is expected to only be in place for up to two days so the temporary impact to the
marsh vegetation is not considered significant.
Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wetland and water resources and to prevent indirect impacts to
such resources are identified. These measures include:
1) A contractor education program shall be developed to educate all construction personnel of
measures to prevent indirect impacts to wetlands and water resources.
2) Coastal salt marsh vegetation adjacent to the construction work areas shall be protected from
inadvertent construction impacts by the placement of construction mesh fencing. The project
applicant shall ensure that all fencing is in place prior to construction operations/grading.
3) Implement erosion control measures during and following construction to avoid deposition of
sediment into adjacent coastal salt marsh and watercourses. The project applicant shall
install and maintain perimeter silt fencing or hay bales and implement post-construction
erosion control seeding. The project applicant shall utilize native plant species in the
revegetation of disturbed areas.
4) Placement of temporary matting in the coastal salt marsh (for temporary construction access to
the grassland area if an upland alternative is not available) may be subject to permitting under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code, and water
quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project applicant
shall obtain all permits and certifications prior to construction, if so required by regulatory
agencies.
5) Placement of the bridge abutments and helical anchor piers (shafts and helixes) within the
coastal salt marsh may be subject to permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code, and water quality certification from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. The project applicant shall obtain all permits and certifications
prior to construction, if so required by regulatory agencies.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 16 December 8, 2014
6) One year after bridge and boardwalk construction and construction access in wetland area (is
used); the project applicant shall monitor the recovery of all coastal salt marsh areas
temporarily affected by trail construction and/or equipment/worker access. If native coastal salt
marsh vegetation has not naturally recovered within the disturbed area and providing at least
30% plant cover, the project applicant shall implement remedial seeding of the disturbed areas
to encourage marsh restoration. Seed from locally collected native coastal salt marsh plant
species shall be used for the restoration work.
3.2.3 Impacts to Special Status Mammal Species
The salt-marsh harvest mouse (SMHM), a species listed as endangered by both the state and federal
resource agencies, is known to occur in the adjacent Ravenswood marsh (CDFW 2014). The salt-marsh
wandering shrew (SMWS), a California Species of Special Concern, is known from salt marsh within
one mile of this site (CDFW 2014). The salt marsh and adjacent ruderal grasslands and scrub habitats at
this trail site were also analyzed for these protected species as part of the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific
Plan (City of East Palo Alto 2009) and as part of the nearby SFPUC new pipeline project (San Francisco
Planning Dept. 2009). Although the habitat at this trail site is considered marginal for these mammals, it
is presumed that they may occur in low numbers.
SMHM and SMWS may be injured or killed by worker access or equipment use within the coastal salt
marsh and ruderal grassland or scrub (both alignments). Indirect effects to these species include
harassment to individuals if any must be relocated prior to construction, and both temporary and
permanent loss of habitat. It is recommended that measures similar to those implemented by the SFPUC
for their pipeline project be implemented for this trail project to avoid, minimize, and compensate for
direct and indirect effects to SMHM and SMWS. The measures recommended for this project include
less compensation than that implemented for the SFPUC project because the construction of this trail
project is of much shorter duration (approximately 12 weeks) and involves a much smaller impact area,
thus potential short-term and long-term impacts to the species are expected to be considerably less.
These measures are listed below.
Avoidance, Minimization and Compensation Measures for SMHM and SMWS:
1) The project applicant shall consult with USFWS and CDFW through the Section 7 process for the
404 permit from the USACE or the Section 10 process, and obtain all necessary approvals for
implementing measures to protect these species.
2) A contractor education program shall be developed to educate all construction personnel of the
potential presence of endangered or threatened wildlife species before they begin any work on
the job site. Personnel will be informed of the species’ sensitivity to human activities, the legal
protection afforded to these species, the penalties for violating these legal protections, their
responsibilities, applicable mitigation measures, and the roles and authority of the monitoring
biologists.
3) Before construction activities begin at the Bay Trail at Ravenswood Project, exclusion fencing
adequate to prevent the entry of SMHM and SMWS shall be installed around all work areas
adjacent to suitable SMHM habitat (i.e., coastal salt marsh with pickleweed and adjacent upland
escape habitat). The final design and placement of the exclusion fencing will be developed in
consultation with the USFWS and CDFW.
4) A qualified biologist shall trap all areas within the exclusion zones that support suitable
pickleweed or upland escape habitat. All captured SMHM and SMWS shall be relocated to the
nearest appropriate habitat outside the exclusion fencing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 17 December 8, 2014
5) Because only a small amount (12.75 sq. ft.) of coastal salt marsh vegetation within the exclusion
zones will be permanently impacted by the proposed project, clearing of all vegetation within the
exclusion zone is not recommended as this would cause considerably more temporary impacts to
SMHM and SMWS habitat than necessary for the project. The exclusion fencing will be
maintained as long as construction-related activities are conducted adjacent to suitable SMHM
and SMWS habitat (including habitat below the raised boardwalk). The contractor will inspect
the fence weekly to ensure its integrity. The USFWS and CDFW may revise the frequency of
monitoring.
6) All work associated with the boardwalk (i.e., anchor piers and wood decking) shall be done by
hand crews, using hand tools, including hand-held drills and other equipment.
7) Upon the completion of construction, any upland areas used for stockpiling of spoils and/or
construction equipment and supplies will be restored in accordance with an approved erosion
control plan. Surface grade will be restored and revegetated with an erosion control seed mix
comprised of appropriate native and nonnative herbaceous plant species.
8) Permanent impacts on suitable SMHM or SMWS breeding habitat and upland habitat will be
mitigated at a ratio of one acre preserved for each acre lost (1:1). Due to the small area of coastal
salt marsh permanently affected by this project, mitigation shall consist of enhancement at a
minimum of 1:1 ratio of nearby suitable SMHM habitat (potentially on other lands owned by
MROSD, SFPUC, or other public agency), subject to the approval of the USFWS and CDFW.
Enhancement shall consist of installing pickleweed plants in bare areas to meet the 1:1 ratio.
Impacts to upland habitat will be mitigated by enhancing other upland areas at a minimum 1:1
ratio (potentially on other lands owned by MROSD, SFPUC, or other public agency); tasks shall
include removal/control of invasive, non-native plant species and other measures as identified by
CDFW and USFWS.
9) Temporary impacts to suitable SMHM and SMWS habitats will be rehabilitated on site as stated
above in Measures 3.2.2 subject to the approval of the USFWS and CDFW.
3.2.4 Impacts to Special Status Bird Species
The California clapper rail (CCR), a species listed as endangered by both the state and federal resource
agencies, is known to occur in the adjacent Ravenswood marsh (CDFW 2014). The California black rail
(CBR), a state listed as threatened by the state, is known from salt marshes approximately three miles
from this site (CDFW 2014). The salt marsh habitat at the proposed trail site was also analyzed for these
protected species as part of the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan (City of East Palo Alto 2009) and as
part of the nearby SFPUC new pipeline project (San Francisco Planning Dept. 2009). Although the
habitat at this trail site is considered very marginal for nesting by these birds because the pickleweed and
cordgrass cover is sparser than other known breeding sites, it is presumed that they may occur in low
numbers, primarily for foraging or resting.
It is unlikely that non-nesting CCR and CBR would be injured or killed by equipment during construction
of the new trail because they are capable of flying away. Indirect effects to these species include
harassment of individuals by disturbance during construction. It is recommended that the same measures
implemented by the SFPUC for their pipeline project be implemented for this trail project to avoid and
minimize for indirect effects to CCR and CBR. These measures are listed below.
Avoidance, Minimization and Compensation Measures for CCR and CBR:
1) The project applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW through the Section 7 process for
the 404 permit from the USACOE, and obtain all necessary approvals for protected species.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 18 December 8, 2014
2) A contractor education program shall be developed, with specific information for all construction
personnel working in the vicinity of potential habitat for special-status shorebirds.
3) No more than 90 days before land-clearing operations begin, a qualified ornithologist shall perform
a habitat assessment to determine if suitable nesting habitat for any of these species is present
within 100 feet of construction limits, including all access and haul routes, and to map their
locations. If no suitable nesting habitat is found, no further actions would be warranted.
4) If suitable breeding habitat lies within 100 feet of the limits of operations, no more than 30 days
before land-clearing operations begin, the ornithologist shall complete focused surveys to determine
whether special-status shorebirds have occupied that habitat. The surveys shall focus on the
breeding season, which extends from February 1 to August 31 for California clapper rail, and from
March 15 to July 15 for California black rail. If no special-status shorebirds are present,
construction may proceed with no adverse effect and no further actions warranted.
5) If special-status shorebirds are present, the project applicant shall consult with the USFWS and
CDFW regarding the implementation of appropriate protective measures. Measures shall generally
include establishing a “no-work” buffer zone within 100 feet of active occupied nests. All buffer
zones will be clearly designated on construction drawings and delineated in the field by orange
construction fencing or a similar visual barrier to equipment operators and personnel. The buffer
zone barrier shall be monitored and maintained until the end of the breeding season and as approved
by the qualified biologist.
6) The project applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW regarding any encroachment of
construction activity within 100 feet of occupied nests. Encroachment may be allowed in some
circumstances with nest monitoring and restrictions on the type of operations (i.e., limits on noise,
distance to the nest). Restrictions would not apply for construction activities within 100 feet of
suitable habitat from October 1 through January 31.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 19 December 8, 2014
LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES
Baldwin (ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
California Native Plant Society, 2014. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.
Electronic Data Base, 2014 edition.
California, State of, Department of Fish & Game. 2014. Natural Diversity Data Base, Natural
Communities. Rarefind Program.
City of East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency. 2009. Ravenswood/4 Corners Transit Oriented
Development Specific Plan, Existing Conditions Report. December 4, 2009.
San Francisco Planning Dept., Major Environmental Analysis Division. 2009. Bay Division Pipeline
Reliability Upgrade Project. Alameda and San Mateo County. SCH#2006062002. Vols. 1, 2 and 3.
July 2009.
Appendix A
Wetland Evaluation, December 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
Bay Trail Concept Plan at Ravenswood, Updated Trail Alignment, dated July 2014
Biological Report 20 December 8, 2014
Appendix B:
Cultural Resources Report
bolrnOIDA550CIATE5
Ar:lcbaeoLogical Consultants
"SINCE THE BEGINNING"
361S FOLSOM ST.SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA 94110 41S/~S'O-7.2Q(')
Julie Mier
David J.Powers &Associates
1871 the Alameda
San Jose,Ca 95126
May 13,2011
Dear Ms.Mier:
RECEIVED
'DJWfD J.r'·)w~d.~.
~!.l\S~.t,);:'i.t,TF.::-.It-''":
RE:CULrURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH FOR THE PROPOSED SAY TRAIL AT
RA VENSWOOD PROJECT,EAST PALO ALTO,SAN MATEO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
At your request I have completed a cultural resources study of the above referenced
project area located on the northern edge of East Palo Alto in San Mateo County.The purpose of
the study was to review existing documents for information regarding known or suspected
cultural resources in and around the project area and to visually inspect the general area where
the trail will be constructed in order to comment on the potential for impacts to resources through
trail construction.No surficial evidence of archaeological deposits was discovered.This report
summarizes my findings to date.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the construction of a trail from university Avenue to the
existing Bay Trail in the Ravenswood Preserve.While the actual alignment of the trail is not now
known,it will extend through the existing SFPUC property and the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District property to connect with the existing Bay Trail.
ARCHIV AL RESEARCH
An archaeological literature review was conducted by this author in person at the
Northwest Information Center (NWIC)on May 2,2011 (NWIC file no.10-1076)to obtain
reports of archaeological surveys in and around the project area,and records of historic and
prehistoric sites in and around the project area.In addition two area studies which in some way
cover the proposed project area were reviewed:the first is the cultural resources section of the
Bay Division Pipeline Reliability Upgrade Project,which covered a discussion of cultural
resources in or near the route of the Hetch Hetchy water line.The second is a study of a park
conversion project done by the City of East Palo Alto at Cooley Landing,south of the current
project area.These two studies,which provide valuable overviews of cultural resources for the
area,will be discussed first.
COOLEY LANDING
In 2007 the archaeological firm Past Forward was contracted to provide a cultural
resources inventory of the proposed 8.5 acre park planned for the Cooley Landing project area.
While no prehistoric cultural resources were found inside the park borders,this report contains a
lengthy section by Mark Hylkema which outlines the Native American use of the East Palo Alto
area over the past 6000 years.Although Cooley Landing itself was not considered to be
archaeologically sensitive,Mr.Hylkema's study did provide a general discussion of settlement
patterns of the area,discussing the nearby prehistoric site Sma-77 (University Village)and others
farther away to illustrate the pattern of Native American land use over the past several thousand
years.No prehistoric cultural resources were reported inside the proposed Bay Trail project area,
but Mr.Hylkema's study did provide some speculation regarding potentially buried resources
now covered by rising bay water levels.
SFPUC STUDY
This study is more general in nature,covering the 21 mile section of the existing right of
way of the Bay Division Pipelines I and 2,as well as specific areas outside of the right of way
which could have been affected by the project.Brief descriptions of two archaeological sites
nearest their project and the proposed Bay Trail project,Sma-77 and 235 were given.A survey of
the project areas,which include portions of the proposed Bay Trail project was conducted in
:W05.While no new archaeological resources were reported inside the Bay Trail general vicinity,
the study did speculate on the potential for the discovery of additional unrecorded deposits:
"]n addition to the known sites described above,other undiscovered prehistoric deposits
may lie beneath the ground surface.The proposed Project alignment passes through
severa]environmental settings occupied by Native Americans in prehistoric times.These
settings include the flat alluvial fans surrounding the South Bay near creeks,sloughs,
former willow stands,and former tidal marshes."
"']f early prehistoric sites exist,they would be buried in the sediments of the San
Francisco Bay or in the surrounding marshlands.The Bay is a relatively recent
phenomenon,only reaching its current aerial extent around 6,000 years ago as sea levels
rose during the Holocene,which began arOlmd 12,000 years ago.Prior to that,the ocean
shoreline was located further to the west and what is now the Bay was floodplain."
(SFPUC 4.6-27).
]n fact,early prehistoric settlements could have existed just south of the proposed project
area,in the vicinity of tile now channelized San Francisquito Creek,which forms the border of
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.The 1899 15'Palo Alto U.S.G.S.map shows Cooley
2
Landing as a dry spit of land extending into the tidal sloughs to the north,east and south of it.
The archaeological literature review conducted for this report did not reveal any
additional recorded archaeological sites inside the general project vicinity,nor any additional
archaeological surveys of the project area.Archaeological site records for the two nearest sites,
Sma-77 and 235 were obtained.Both these sites are located approximately a quarter mile away
from the proposed project area:Sma-77 has largely been destroyed by construction,while the
actual borders of Sma-235 remain somewhat problematic;this site may still exist undisturbed in
some areas.
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD INSPECTION
A visual inspection of the probable routes of the trail was conducted by this author on
May 9,2011 in the company of the SFPUC environmental specialist Tony Jones,who guided this
author to the most likely routes the connecting path from University Avenue to the existing trail
will take.The easiest route would be to follow the existing roadway into the project area,where
it would then branch out to the southeast,following the fence line which separates the SFPUC
property from the existing housing to the south.The trail would then extend into open space
property,and at some point would extend over the tidal marshes to connect with the existing trail
north of the power transmission lines.
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary,only a fragment of the SFPUC property which may be used for the trail
connector was visually surveyed.The general area where the trail connectors could be built is in
fact tidal marsh lands;those dry portions of the study area (running from University Avenue into
the open space property)appear to also have been tidal marsh until they were filled in the mid
20 th century to build the housing found there.
It is the opinion of this author that the entire area proposed for the Bay Trail connector
was in fact tidal marsh well into the mid 20 1h century.Those prehistoric archaeological sites
nearest to the area,Sma-77 and 235,probably represent the nearest examples of settlements
occupied over a two to three thousand year period,ending in the late 18 th century.Additional
archaeological resources have been fOlmd farther inland in East Palo Alto,centering along the
former riparian zone associated with San Francisquito Creek,but extending into the oak
woodlands farther away from it as well.
The proposed Bay Trail property probably was too wet to have supported any type of
settlement over the past 3000 years.If cultural resources existed there in the past,they would
date back to the period 4-6000 years ago when the bay began to rise.The riparian corridor of the
creek,the ideal settlement location,would have extended a considerable distance to the north,
passing through the SFPUC property in the process.Currently there is a deep excavation
underway just north of the proposed Bay Trail area,which extends into and through former
3
possible living surfaces.According to Mr.Jones,no buried archaeological resources have been
reported from this excavation.
Construction of the Bay Trail anywhere inside the SFPUC property should have no effect
on buried prehistoric archaeological resources,as long as work is restricted to the portions of the
property already filled on historically,or in those areas which are still at the original bay marsh
elevations.Any prehistoric archaeological deposits in these areas would be deep enough to be
protected from grading and placement of fill to achieve necessary elevations to connect with the
existing Bay Trail alignment.This report does not recommend mechanical subsurface testing to
search for buried archaeological resources unless trail construction would require deep
excavation.
Sincerely,
Miley Paul Holman
Holman &Associates
REFERENCES CITED
Baxter,Scott,Rebecca Allen and Mark Hylkema
2007 Cooley Landing Cultural Resource Inventory and Assessment.Prepared
for the City of East Palo Alto.
SFPUC
n.d.Cultural Resources discussion of the Bay Division Pipeline Reliability
Upgrade project.
4
HAY TRAIL AT RAVENSWOOD
EAST PALO ALTO,SAN MATEO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
PALO ALTO AND MOUNTAIN VIEW U.S.G.S.MAPS
----_.~-
'A10RS
--!1
-II I
>tl
7.~
~I>
''''1~I
.;)1j-'---
I-_.-+
MUD
s l
MITIGATION MONITORING and REPORTING PROGRAM
MROSD/BAY TRAIL CONNECTION AT RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
Santa Clara County, CA
November 2, 2016
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
MROSD/BAY TRAIL CONNECTION AT
RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) 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 MITGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING 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 mitigation measures incorporated
into the MROSD/Bay Trail Connection at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (the project). These
mitigation measures are reproduced from the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The
columns within the tables have the following meanings:
Number: The number in this column refers to the Initial Study section where the
mitigation measure is discussed.
Mitigation: This column lists the specific mitigation identified within the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Timing: This column identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the
mitigation will be completed. The mitigation measures are organized by
order in which they appear in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Who will
verify?
This column references the District staff that will ensure implementation
of the mitigation measures.
Agency /
Department
Consultation:
This column references any public agency or District Department with
which coordination is required to ensure implementation of the mitigation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife is listed as CDFW. The
United States Fish and Wildlife Service is listed as USFWS. The Native
American Heritage Commission is listed as NAHC.
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 measure
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
the mitigation has occurred, the General Manager shall take 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.
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
4.3.2.1 MM AIR-1:
The proposed project shall include the following BAAQMD best
management practices during construction:
• All exposed unvegetated surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be
watered with potable water two times per day as required by
weather conditions or covered using weed-free straw mulch or
erosion control matting/blanket.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material
off-site shall be covered.
• Stabilized construction entrances and/or on-site truck tire
washing stations shall be utilized at the construction site to
reduce visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads,
to the maximum extent feasible. The use of power sweeping
equipment is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5
minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly
tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All
equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions
evaluator.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number
and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
During project
construction.
MROSD City of East
Palo Alto
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.1:
The project proponent shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW
through the Section 7 process for the 404 permit from the USACE,
or the Section 10 process, and obtain all necessary approvals for
implementing measures to protect these species.
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with trail
construction.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.2:
A contractor education program shall be developed to educate all
construction personnel of the potential presence of sensitive,
endangered, or threatened wildlife species before they begin any
work on the job site. Personnel shall be notified of the species’
sensitivity to human activities, the legal protection afforded to these
species, the penalties for violating these legal protections, their
responsibilities, applicable mitigation measures, and the roles and
authority of the monitoring biologists.
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with trail
construction.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.3:
Prior to any project construction activities, wildlife exclusion
fencing that prevents the entry of salt-marsh harvest mouse and salt-
marsh wandering shrew shall be installed around all work areas
adjacent to suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse habitat (i.e., coastal
salt marsh with pickleweed and adjacent upland escape habitat). The
final design and placement of the wildlife exclusion fencing shall be
developed in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW.
During initial project
construction.
MROSD USFWS and
CDFW (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.4:
A qualified biologist shall design and oversee installation of wildlife
exclusion fencing in all areas within the wildlife exclusion zones that
support suitable pickleweed or upland escape habitat. If any salt-marsh
harvest mouse or salt-marsh wandering shrew are captured within the
During initial project
construction.
MROSD USFWS and
CDFW (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
enclosed areas, they shall be relocated by qualified personnel according
to the requirements of USFWS and CDFW. All captured mice and
shrews shall be relocated to the nearest appropriate habitat outside the
exclusion fencing. The wildlife exclusion fencing shall be maintained
as long as construction-related activities are conducted adjacent to
suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse and salt-marsh wandering shrew
habitat (including the habitat below the raised boardwalk). The
contractor shall inspect the fence weekly to ensure its integrity. The
integrity of the fence shall be verified by a qualified biological monitor.
The USFWS and CDFW may revise the scheduling and frequency of
the monitoring.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.5:
All work associated with the boardwalk (i.e., anchor piers and wood
decking) shall be done by hand crews, using hand tools, including hand-
held drills and other equipment. Cranes would then be required to place
the bridge segments on their supports/abutments.
During trail
construction.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.6:
Upon the completion of construction, any upland areas used for
stockpiling of spoils and/or construction equipment and supplies shall
be restored in accordance with an approved erosion control plan.
Surface grade shall be restored and revegetated with an erosion control
seed mix comprised of appropriate native herbaceous plant species.
During project
construction.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.7:
Permanent impacts on suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse or salt-marsh
wandering shrew breeding habitat and upland habitat shall be mitigated
at a ratio of one square foot restored/enhanced for each square foot lost
(1:1). Since only a small area of coastal salt marsh shall be
permanently affected by this project (approximately 300-2,000 square
feet), mitigation shall consist of enhancement of a minimum of 300-
As part of permit
compliance.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW,
SFPUC, and
USACE (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
2,000 square feet of nearby suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse habitat
(potentially on other lands owned by MROSD, SFPUC, or other public
agencies), subject to the approval of the USFWS and CDFW.
Restoration shall consist of installing pickleweed plants in areas lacking
vegetation, removing invasive vegetation in saltmarsh or nearby
uplands, or decompacting/decommissioning old roads or social trails to
meet the 1:1 ratio. Impacts to upland habitat shall be mitigated by
planting/enhancing other upland areas at a minimum of the 1:1 ratio
(potentially on other lands owned by MROSD, SFPUC or other public
agencies); tasks may include removal/control of invasive, non-native
plant species or other measures as identified by CDFW and USFWS.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.8:
Temporary impacts to suitable salt-marsh harvest mouse and salt-marsh
wandering shrew habitats shall be rehabilitated on-site, as stated in
measure MM BIO-1.6, and are subject to the approval of the USFWS
and CDFW.
As part of permit
compliance.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-2.1:
The project proponent shall consult with the USFWS through the
Section 7 process for the 404 permit from the USACE, and obtain all
necessary approvals for work affecting protected species.
During initial trail
development as part
of permit compliance.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-2.2:
A contractor education program shall be developed, with specific
information for all construction personnel working in the vicinity of
potential habitat for special-status shorebirds.
Prior to project
construction.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-2.3:
Within 90 days before land-clearing operations begin, a qualified
ornithologist shall perform a habitat assessment to determine if suitable
Prior to project
construction.
MROSD N/A
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
nesting habitat for any of these species is present within 100 feet of
construction limits. If no suitable nesting habitat is found, no further
actions would be warranted.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-2.4:
If suitable breeding habitat occurs within 100 feet of the limits of
operations, no more than 15 days before land-clearing operations begin,
the ornithologist shall complete focused surveys to determine whether
special-status shorebirds have occupied that habitat. The surveys shall
typically occur during breeding season, which extends from February 1
to August 31 for California Ridgway’s rail, and from March 15 to July
15 for California black rail. If construction does not occur during the
breeding season for California Ridgway’s rail or California black rail,
pre-construction surveys for these birds would not be required. If no
special status shorebirds are present, construction may proceed with no
adverse effect and no further actions warranted.
Prior to project
construction.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-2.5:
If special-status shorebirds are present, the project proponent shall
consult with the USFWS and CDFW regarding the implementation of
appropriate protective measures. Measures shall generally include
establishing a “no-work” buffer zone in the vicinity of active occupied
nests, with the size of the buffer to be determined by the ornithologist in
consultation with USFWS and CDFW. All buffer zones shall be
designated on construction drawings and delineated in the field by
orange construction fencing or a similar visual barrier to equipment
operators and personnel. The buffer zone barrier shall be monitored
and maintained until the end of the breeding season and as approved by
a qualified biologist.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-2.6:
Encroachment of construction activities within a designated buffer
zone around occupied nests may occur only after consultation with
and concurrence by USFWS and CDFW and with nest monitoring
and restrictions on the type of operations (e.g., limits on noise,
distance to the nest) to ensure the project does not have a substantial
adverse effect on nesting bird.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-3.1:
Construction, including vegetation removal, during the active
nesting season for breeding birds (February 1 – August 31) shall be
avoided as much as feasible in areas that are not currently developed.
If construction during the breeding season cannot be avoided, pre-
construction breeding bird surveys within 0.25 miles of active
construction shall be completed within 14 days prior to ground
disturbance to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and/or young
of ground-nesting birds. Surveys can be used to detect the nests of
special status as well as non-special status birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A buffer zone where no construction
would be allowed shall be established around any active nests of any
avian species found in or immediately adjacent to the project area
until a qualified ornithologist has determined that all young have
fledged. The size of the exclusion zones may depend on species,
location, and placement of nest, and shall be determined by a
qualified ornithologist and, if necessary, the USFWS and the CDFW.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-4.1:
A pre-construction survey shall be completed during the blooming
period of Congdon’s tarplant by a qualified biologist; the typical
blooming period is from June through October. Occurrences of
Congdon’s tarplant shall be documented by a global positioning system
Prior to project
construction.
MROSD CDFW (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
(GPS) and demarcated on project plans and in the field. A CNDDB
field survey form shall be completed and submitted to CDFW. If the
Congdon’s tarplant is discovered within the proposed trail alignment,
the trail shall be re-routed to avoid the plant. If avoidance is not
feasible, a qualified MROSD personnel shall collect available seeds
from the plants in the impact area. MROSD shall develop and
implement a revegetation program wherein the collected seed would be
distributed into suitable habitat within the project vicinity to achieve no
net loss of tarplant individuals. The success of the revegetation
program shall be monitored yearly for a period of three years.
Monitoring shall consist of a yearly census of Congdon’s tarplant
plants. The revegetation program shall be deemed successful if there is
no net loss of tarplant individuals each year for three years. If this
performance standard is not met in any of the monitoring years,
MROSD will implement remedial revegetation actions, such as re-
seeding, weeding, or other actions, as determined by a qualified
restoration ecologist, until performance standards are met.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-4.2:
If the Congdon’s tarplant is found adjacent to the construction area,
prior to construction, temporary construction fencing shall be
installed to provide a buffer around the plant under the supervision
of a qualified biologist or biological monitor along the edge of
construction area to prevent any inadvertent equipment entry or
other site disturbance into areas that support Congdon’s tarplant. A
contractor education program shall be developed to educate all
construction personnel of the potential presence of sensitive,
endangered or threatened plant species before they begin any work
on the job site. Personnel shall be notified of the species’ sensitivity
to human activities, the legal protection afforded to these species, the
penalties for violating these legal protections, their responsibilities,
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD CDFW (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
applicable mitigation measures, and the roles and authority of the
monitoring biologists.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.1:
A contractor education program shall be developed to educate all
construction personnel of measures to prevent indirect impacts to
wetlands and water resources.
Prior to project
construction.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.2:
Northern coastal salt marsh vegetation adjacent to the construction
work areas shall be protected from inadvertent construction impacts
by the placement of construction mesh fencing. The project
applicant shall ensure that all fencing is in place prior to construction
operations and/or grading. Fencing installation will be completed
under the guidance of a qualified biologist.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.3:
The following erosion control measures shall be implemented during
and following construction to avoid deposition of sediment into
adjacent coastal salt marsh and watercourses:
• The project applicant shall install and maintain perimeter silt
fencing or hay bales and implement post-construction
erosion control seeding.
• The project applicant shall revegetate all disturbed [upland]
areas with native plant species immediately after site
preparation and grading.
• The project applicant shall use certified weed-free hay and
seed.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD N/A
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.4:
Placement of temporary (up to two days) matting in the coastal salt
marsh (for temporary construction access to the grassland area), if an
upland alternative is not available may be subject to permitting under
Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1601 of
the Fish and Game Code. The project applicant shall obtain all
permits and certifications prior to construction, if required.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.5:
Placement of the bridge abutments and pile or helical anchor
foundations (shafts and helixes) within the coastal salt marsh and
construction of the four foot wide gravel shoulder along the north
side of the SFPUC Service Road may be subject to permitting under
Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1601 of
the Fish and Game Code. The project applicant shall obtain all
permits and certifications prior to construction and adhere to all
permit requirements, if so required by regulatory agencies.
Prior to and during
project construction
and as part of permit
compliance.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.6:
The project proponent shall monitor the recovery of all coastal salt
marsh areas temporarily affected by trail construction and/or
equipment/worker access one year after boardwalk and bridge
construction and construction access to the grassland area (if used). If
native coastal salt marsh vegetation has not naturally recovered within
the disturbed area and provided at least 30 percent native plant cover,
the project proponent shall implement remedial seeding of the disturbed
areas to induce marsh restoration. Seed from locally collected native
coastal salt marsh plant species shall be used for the restoration work.
The success of the recovery/revegetation program shall be monitored
yearly for a period of three years. Monitoring shall consist of a yearly
survey of plant cover within the affected areas. The revegetation
Prior to and during
project construction
and as part of permit
compliance.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
program shall be deemed successful if there is a minimum of 30 percent
native plant cover each year for three years. If this performance
standard is not met in any of the monitoring years, MROSD will
implement remedial revegetation actions, such as re-seeding, weeding,
or other actions, as determined by a qualified restoration ecologist, until
performance standards are met.
MM BIO-5.7:
The project proponent shall implement a coastal marsh
restoration/revegetation program to provide compensation for
permanent impacts to the coastal marsh. The program shall
restore/revegetate coastal marsh at a 1:1 impact to restoration ratio.
Suitable low-elevation areas within the project area shall be selected
for marsh restoration and these areas shall be revegetated with native
coastal marsh plant species. Seed from locally collected native
coastal salt marsh plant species shall be used for the restoration
work. The success of the restoration program shall be monitored
yearly for a period of 3 years. Monitoring shall consist of a yearly
survey of plant cover within the restored areas. The revegetation
program shall be deemed successful if there is a minimum of 30
percent native plant cover each year for 3 years. If this performance
standard is not met in any of the monitoring years, MROSD will
implement remedial revegetation actions, such as re-seeding,
weeding, or other actions, as determined by a qualified restoration
ecologist, until performance standards are met.
Prior to and during
project construction
and as part of permit
compliance.
MROSD USFWS,
CDFW, and
USACE (if
necessary)
4.5.2.1 MM CUL-1:
At the time structural and geotechnical design is completed, a
professional archaeologist shall be retained to review the soil data to
determine if monitoring is required to avoid cultural resources
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD N/A
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
impacts. If monitoring is required, a professional archaeologist shall
oversee the excavation for boardwalk piers.
4.5.2.1 MM CUL-1.2:
Should any archaeological indicators be exposed or discovered during
either site preparation or subsurface construction activities, all
construction work within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped
until the professional archaeologist has an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation as
determined necessary to protect the resource. The City of East Palo
Alto Planning Manager and City of East Palo Alto Engineer shall be
notified and if the find is within the City of Menlo Park, the City of
Menlo Park’s Community Development Director shall also be notified.
During project
construction.
MROSD County of
Santa Clara,
Coroner
NAHC (if
necessary)
4.5.2.1 MM CUL-1.3:
In the event that Native American human remains or funerary objects
are discovered, the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code
shall be followed. Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and
Safety Code states:
• In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains
in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be
no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the
San Mateo County Coroner has determined, in accordance with
Chapter 10 of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government
Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of
Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related
provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances,
manner and cause of death, and the recommendations
concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains
have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or
During project
construction.
MROSD County of
Santa Clara,
Coroner
NAHC (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided
in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
4.8.2.1 MM HAZ-1:
During the final design phase of the project, the portion(s) of the trail
alignment that traverse known or suspected undocumented fill will
be tested for the presence of contamination and hazardous materials.
The testing of the soil will be performed in accordance with standard
procedures and protocols. The analytical results will be compared
against applicable hazardous waste criteria. Based on the analytical
results, the investigation will provide recommendations regarding
management and disposal of affected soils if any are found to be
present to ensure the affected soils are handled so as to avoid
exposure of workers, the public, and the environment to hazardous
materials. All recommendations shall be followed.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD County of
Santa Clara
(if necessary)
4.9.2.1 MM HYD-1.1:
Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the
project shall comply with the SWRCB’s NPDES General Construction
Activities Permit, as follows:
• The project contractor shall develop, implement, and
maintain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including
sediments associated with construction activities; and
• The project contractor shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI)
with the SWRCB.
Prior to project
construction.
MROSD SWRCB
4.9.2.1 MM HYD-1.2:
The project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control
the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated
with construction activities. Prior to installation, the contractor shall be
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD N/A
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
required to prepare an Erosion Control Plan to ensure that erosion is
minimal on the site and water quality standards of the RWQCB are not
exceeded. The Erosion Control Plan shall include BMPs as specified in
the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures 1
for reducing impacts on the storm drainage system from installation
activities. The following specific BMPs shall be implemented to
prevent stormwater pollution and minimize potential sedimentation
during construction and shall be included in the construction contract:
• Utilize on-site sediment control BMPs to retain sediment on
the project site;
• Stabilized construction entrances and/or on-site truck tire
washing stations shall be utilized at the construction site to
reduce visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public
roads, to the maximum extent feasible. The use of power
sweeping equipment is prohibited;
• Provide temporary cover of disturbed surfaces to help
control erosion during installation;
• Provide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces
after installation has been completed;
• Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and
wastes properly, so as to prevent their contact with
stormwater;
• Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants,
including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products,
chemicals, washwater or sediments, and non-stormwater
discharges to storm drains and watercourses;
• Utilize sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment
from dewatering effluent;
1 Association of Bay Area Governments. Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. May 1995.
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
• Refueling of construction equipment and maintenance
equipment (e.g. chainsaws, string or line trimmers) must be
done 65 feet from riparian or wetland areas. Spill-kits and a
plan for notification should a spill occur, will be required;
Portable toilets should be located in an area away from
wetland areas;
• Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or
critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses with
field markers; and
• Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from
construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment
barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as
appropriate.
4.12.2.1 MM NOI-1.1:
In compliance with East Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
15.04.125 and the City of Menlo Park General Plan, construction
activity will be limited to 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM weekdays with no
construction on Saturdays, Sundays or national holidays. This will
avoid increased noise levels at adjacent residences during the noise-
sensitive evening and nighttime hours.
During project
construction.
MROSD Cities of East
Palo Alto and
Menlo Park
4.12.2.1 MM NOI-1.2:
The contractor shall use “new technology” power construction
equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices.
All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be
equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical
condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained
engines or other components.
During project
construction.
MROSD Cities of East
Palo Alto and
Menlo Park
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
4.12.2.1 MM NOI-1.3:
Stationary noise generating equipment shall be located as far as
possible from sensitive receptors.
During project
construction.
MROSD Cities of East
Palo Alto and
Menlo Park
4.12.2.1 MM NOI-1.4:
Stationary equipment located within 100 feet of existing residential
receivers shall be acoustically shielded.
During project
construction.
Cities of East
Palo Alto and
Menlo Park
4.12.2.1 MM NOI-1.5:
Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines in excess of five
minutes will be prohibited.
During project
construction.
MROSD Cities of East
Palo Alto and
Menlo Park
4.12.2.1 MM NOI-1.6:
The contractor shall prepare a construction plan identifying the
schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The
construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with
adjacent land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to
minimize noise disturbance.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD Cities of East
Palo Alto and
Menlo Park
4.12.2.1 MM NOI-1.7:
The contractor will designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be
responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise.
The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable
measures be implemented to correct the problem.
Prior to and during
project construction.
MROSD Cities of East
Palo Alto and
Menlo Park
Resolutions/2016/16-__CEQA-RavenswoodBayTrail 1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION INCLUDING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE RAVENSWOOD BAY TRAIL
CONNECTION PROJECT AT RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
I. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has
reviewed the proposed Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project (“Project”) within and
adjacent to the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (Preserve).
II. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively, MND), attached to the
Board Report, was prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et
seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.).
III. The MND identified potentially significant adverse effects on the environment from the
proposed project, but found that mitigation measures made as part of the proposed Project
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to below a level of significance.
IV. The MND and a notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration were
circulated for public review from September 30, 2016 to November 1, 2016.
V. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached to the Board Report, was
prepared to ensure compliance with the MND’s mitigation measures.
VI. On November 16, 2016 the Board of Directors conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on the adequacy of the MND at which oral and written comments and a staff
recommendation for approval of the MND were presented to the Board of Directors. The
Board of Directors reviewed and considered the information in the MND, administrative
record, and Staff Reports for completeness and compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the District Board of Directors that, based upon
the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record
presented, the Board of Directors finds that:
1. Notice of the availability of the MND and all hearings on the MND was given as required
by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.
2. All interested parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to
submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND prior to this action by the
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolutions/2016/16-__CEQA-RavenswoodBayTrail 2
Board of Directors, and all comments raised during the public comment period and at the
public hearings on the MND were responded to adequately.
3. Prior to approving the Project that is the subject of the MND, the Board has considered
the MND, along with all comments received during the public review process.
4. The MND identifies potentially significant effects with respect to certain environmental
impacts, and the Board hereby finds that these effects will be mitigated or avoided by the
changes and/or Mitigation Measures incorporated into the Project as described in the
MND.
5. The Board finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the MND and
all comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a
significant effect on the environment in that, although the Project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case since
Mitigation Measures have been made a part of the Project to avoid such effects.
6. The Board adopts the MND and determines that the MND reflects the District’s
independent judgment and analysis.
7. The Board adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and finds
that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the Project and shall be
implemented as part of the Project.
8. The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which this decision is based is at the offices of the General Manager
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos,
California 94022.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _____, 2016, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
Resolutions/2016/16-__CEQA-RavenswoodBayTrail 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
City of East Palo Alto
Office of the City Manager
November 1, 2016
Gretchen Lausten, Planner III
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
RE: Comments on Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Bay
Trail Connection at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
Dear Gretchen Lausten:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Bay Trail Connection at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. The vast
majority of the project will occur in the City of East Palo Alto, and the City appreciates this
opportunity to comment as a Responsible Party. As a Responsible Party, the City will have to
rely on the IS/MND to make the necessary findings to adopt the Use Permit and other actions.
The City has consistently supported the Bay Trail connection in this corridor as part of a Loop
Road that would alleviate traffic in East Palo Alto. The Loop Road is critical to East Palo Alto’s
ability to develop the Ravenswood Business District and alleviate traffic along University Ave.
Eighty four percent of the traffic along University Avenue is cut through traffic that neither
originates nor ends in East Palo Alto.
Community Engagement
Almost the entirety of the proposed trail is adjacent to the University Village Neighborhood in
East Palo Alto. The City appreciates the community outreach performed by MPROSD, and
looks forward to working with MPROSD to continue the community outreach and engagement
into the final design and construction of the project.
Relationship to Updated General Plan
The City recently adopted its General Plan Update in October 2016. Please update the policies
with the new General Plan information. In particular, please note that Policy 3.2 specifically
relates to the future multimodal Loop Road. See below.
3.2 Loop road. Pursue the new multimodal Loop Road, including the Bay Trail connection, as
described in the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan to alleviate congestion and
neighborhood traffic.
ATTACHMENT 3
Relationship to Adopted Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan
The Specific Plan supports the Bay Trail connection as part of the multimodal Loop Road. City
staff worked closely with MPRSOD staff to ensure that the Loop Road included the Bay Trail
connection and addressed the “interim” design and the future permanent design.
Policies 4-1-4.3 specifically address the multimodal Loop Road.
Policy TRA-4.1 Pursue funding to develop a loop road that connects University Avenue to
Demeter Street, looping around the north and east parts of the University Village neighborhood.
Policy TRA-4.2 Identify key regulatory challenges to construction of a loop road, and work with
regulatory agencies to overcome these challenges.
Policy TRA-4.3 Work with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(MROSD) to develop a memorandum of understanding to design and develop an interim trail
consistent with Figure 7-4 in Chapter Seven of this Specific Plan and a permanent trail along the
Loop Road consistent with Figure 7-3 in Chapter Seven of this Specific Plan.
The role of the multimodal Loop Road, and its Bay Trail importance is referenced in the
discussion of the Pedestrian Network on page 61.
Loop Road/Bay Trail Connection. The northern portion of the proposed loop road, located
north of and parallel to Tulane Avenue, will also include a multi-use pedestrian/bicycle trail that
would connect eastward to the Bay Trail. This would support regional goals for open space
access. Conceptual cross-sections of potential trail alignments along the loop road are shown in
Chapter Seven, Streetscape Standards and Guidelines.
The Specific Plan recognized that there would be an interim design for the Bay Trail and the
Loop Road, and there would be a future permanent design. The design standards for the Loop
Road are included as Attachment 1.
The City of East Palo Alto has an excellent working relationship with MPROSD. The
MPROSD’s easement agreement with SFPUC includes the following language regarding the
potential assignment of the easement.
6. Assignment. The Holder shall have the ability to assign this trail easement to another
public agency or to a non-profit entity with an open space or park purpose, in accordance with
Public Resources Code 5540.6, subject to San Francisco’s prior written consent which San
Francisco may grant or withhold at its reasonable discretion. In determining whether to approve
a proposed assignment, San Francisco may consider such factors as the proposed assignee’s
demonstrated ability and capacity, in terms of budget, personnel and experience, to perform the
Holder’s obligations under this Agreement, including maintenance, repair, patrolling and
enforcement obligations.
This potential transfer to another City or non profit is of significant concern to the City of East
Palo Alto. The City of East Palo Alto is one of the newest, smallest, and poorest cities in the
Bay Area. It is a low income, majority minority city completely surrounded by Palo Alto and the
City of Menlo Park, which are among the wealthiest cities in the Bay Area. The past is
characterized by the community of East Palo Alto being negatively acted upon by powerful other
jurisdictions. East Palo Alto was split apart by highway 101. For decades, East Palo Alto was
the dumping ground for the heavy industry in San Mateo County, and has to overcome a legacy
of highly toxic contamination. The industrial area east of Willow Road was annexed by the City
of Menlo Park just prior to East Palo Alto’s incorporation. San Francisquito Creek was rerouted
to be closer to East Palo Alto so as to develop a golf course and airport.
If another city or nonprofit were to hold the trail easement it could potentially restrict or control
the future design of the Loop Road. East Palo Alto needs to control its own destiny.
Consistent with RBSP Policy TRA-4.3, City staff and MPROSD staff have been working on a
Draft MOU. Therefore, in order to be able to make the findings and approvals required by a
Responsible Agency, the City of East Palo requires the following language:
First, that any assignment of the easement be offered to the City of East Palo Alto first.
Second, that if the City of East Palo Alto does not accept the assignment, the City has to approve
the entity to which the assignment is made. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent.
This language would ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan policy
3.2 and Specific Plan policies TRA-4.1, TRA-4.2, TRA-4.3.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on IS/MND for the Bay Trail Connection at
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. The City of East Palo Alto looks forward to continuing our
collaborative relationship with the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District on this Project
and other projects that have a positive impact on our city and the region.
If you desire additional information or have any questions regarding this letter, please contact
Sean Charpentier, Assistant City Manager, at (650)833-8946.
Sincerely,
Carlos Martinez
City Manager
Attachment 1: Loop Road Design Standards from RBDSP
cc: East Palo Alto City Council
Stephen Abbors, MPROSD Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 1
Dear Mr. Martinez,
Thank you for your comments regarding the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project. The
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND, SCH# _______) analyzing
potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Project was published on
September 30, 2016, and the public comment period ended on November 1, 2016. This letter has
been prepared to respond to the City of East Palo Alto’s (EPA) comments, dated November 1,
2016, regarding the Project’s relationship to EPA’s General Plan and Ravenswood / 4 Corners
TOD Specific Plan, and the potential assignment of the trail easement to another public agency.
The District has taken note of EPA’s General Plan and Ravenswood / 4 Corners TOD Specific
Plan policies that relate to the proposed future multimodal loop road:
GP Transportation Policy 3.2 Loop road. Pursue the new multimodal Loop Road,
including the Bay Trail connection, as described in the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD
Specific Plan to alleviate congestion and neighborhood traffic.
Policy TRA-4.1 Pursue funding to develop a loop road that connects University Avenue
to Demeter Street, looping around the north and east parts of the University Village
neighborhood.
Policy TRA-4.2 Identify key regulatory challenges to construction of a loop road, and
work with regulatory agencies to overcome these challenges.
Policy TRA-4.3 Work with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) to
develop a memorandum of understanding to design and develop an interim trail
consistent with Figure 7-4 in Chapter Seven of this Specific Plan and a permanent trail
along the Loop Road consistent with Figure 7-3 in Chapter Seven of this Specific Plan.
Over the past eight years, the District has worked closely with EPA and negotiated with the
SFPUC to ensure that the Ravenswood Bay Trail alignment and design is compatible with the
Loop Road identified in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Plan. The District will continue to
collaborate with EPA during more detailed design and construction of the Bay Trail to ensure
consistency with the future Loop Road. In addition, the District is committed to working with
EPA to help provide improved community access along the former Union Pacific Right-of Way
and from the University Village neighborhood to the Bay Trail, Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve and Cooley Landing.
Regarding the EPA’s comments about of the Assignment language in the public trail easement
negotiated with the SFPUC over the last six years, the District understands EPA’s concern about
another city or non-profit organization managing the Ravenswood Bay Trail in the future and
restricting or controlling future design of the Loop Road. However, the public trail easement
represents a complex, six-year, property transaction negotiated between the SFPUC and the
District. As such, the District is unable to include a commitment to EPA in the easement as
proposed in your letter:
[“First, that any assignment of the easement be offered to the City of East Palo Alto first.
Second, that the City of East Palo Alto does not accept the assignment, the City has to
approve the entity to which the assignment is made. The City will not unreasonably
withhold its consent.”]
Be assured that for the foreseeable future, the District is committed to managing and patrolling
the Ravenswood Bay Trail as part of the Preserve. The District has assured EPA that, in the
unlikely event the District decides to assign or transfer this trail in the future, EPA would be
offered the first opportunity to manage or own the trail based on the staff and resource capacity.
Furthermore, the draft MOU was transmitted to Assistant City Manager Sean Charpentier via
email dated August 24, 2016 as a mechanism for formalizing the District’s offer to provide EPA
the first opportunity of assignment. This draft MOU also outlines other issues of mutual interest
discussed with the Assistant City Manager in July and summarized below:
• Collaborating with EPA on emergency response and patrol at the Ravenswood Bay Trail.
• Site Security between the University Village neighborhood and the Bay Trail across the
SFPUC property.
• Cooperation on future community access to the Bay Trail, the Preserve and Cooley
Landing.
As the District has demonstrated in working with EPA on the Cooley Landing Park, the District
is committed to our ongoing working relationship, and is open to discussing these issues further
and formalizing our agreements in a MOU between EPA and the District. Please have Assistant
City Manager, Sean Charpentier, contact Michael Williams, the District’s Real Property
Manager at (650) 691-1200 Ext. 542 to finalize the MOU.
Resolutions/2016/16-__Acceptance of Public Trail Easement 1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-__
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC TRAIL
EASEMENT, AUTHORIZING OFFICER OR GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE
QUITCLAIM OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT, AUTHORIZING OFFICER OR
GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT
TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 AGREEMENT TO EXCHANGE INTERESTS IN REAL
PROPERTY AND ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THIS TRANSACTION (RAVENSWOOD OPEN
SPACE PRESERVE – LANDS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO)
The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows:
SECTION ONE. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does
hereby accept the Public Trail Easement between the City and County of San Francisco, a
municipal corporation (“City”) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President or other
appropriate officer to execute this Agreement on behalf of the District.
SECTION TWO. The President of the Board of Directors, General Manager or other
appropriate officer is authorized to execute the Quitclaim of Open Space Easement being
conveyed to the City.
SECTION THREE. The President of the Board of Directors, General Manager or other
appropriate officer is authorized to execute the Certificate of Acceptance for the Public Trail
Easement on behalf of the District.
SECTION FOUR. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to
provide notice of acceptance to the City. The General Manager and General Counsel are
authorized to amend the 2010 Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property between the
City and District to provide instructions to implement and close this transaction. The General
Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve any technical revisions to the
transactional documents, which do not involve any material change to any terms of the public
trail easement, quitclaim of open space easement, or other transactional documents, which are
necessary or appropriate to the closing or implementation of this transaction.
SECTION FIVE. The General Manager of the District or his designee is authorized to expend
up to $5,000 to cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, and other miscellaneous costs
related to this transaction.
SECTION SIX. The Board of Directors finds and determines that, pursuant to Section 5540.5
of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, the granting and acceptance of these
easements is consistent with Public Resources Code 5540.5, that the interest in real property
being acquired by the District is of equal or greater value than the interest in real property being
transferred to the City, and is necessary to be acquired for open space purposes.
ATTACHMENT 4
Resolutions/2016/16-__Acceptance of Public Trail Easement 2
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _____, 2016, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
FREMONT
SANTACLARA
SUNNYVALE
Ä87
Ä237
Ä92
Ä84
Ä85Ä35
Ä82
Ä280
Ä880
Ä680
Ä101
REDWOODCITY
UNION CITY
MOUNTAINVIEW
PALOALTO MILPITAS
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
Regional Map for Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project
February, 2016
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
a
v
e
n
s
w
o
o
d
\
R
a
v
e
n
s
w
o
o
d
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
_
J
M
\
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
_
2
0
1
6
0
1
2
2
\
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
_
2
0
1
6
0
1
2
2
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
r
h
a
i
n
e
s
0 52.5MilesI
(MROSD)MROSD Preserves
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Proposed Bay Trail
Existing Bay Trail
Other Protected Open Spaceor Park Lands
Ravenswood Bay Trail ConnectionProject Site
S a nF r a n c i s c oB a y
Ravenswood OpenSpace Preserve
Bay Trail ConnectionProject Site
Don
Edwards
San
Francisco
Bay
National
WildlifeRefuge
Blair IslandState Marine Park
ShorelinePark
80 Miles Continuous Bay Trail
ATTACHMENT 5
É
É !^"""
³³
?
Ã109
Ã101
Ã114
Ã84
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project
February, 2016
0 3,0001,500FeetI
(MROSD)MROSD Preserves
Private Property
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
ObservationPlatform
Other Protected Open Spaceor Park Lands
UniversityVillage
Don EdwardsSan Francisco BayNational Wildlife Refuge
S a nF r a n c i s c oB a y
Other Public Agency
Proposed Bay Trail
Non MROSD EasementOver Water Existing Bay Trail
SFPUC
ObservationPlatform Cooley Landing Education Center
Ravenswood OpenSpace Preserve
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Palo Alto
BaylandsNaturePreserve
Bay Road
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 7
DATE: November 9, 2016
MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors
THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager
FROM: Shelly Lewis, Public Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Public Meeting Survey – Summary of Results
_____________________________________________________________________________
At the General Manager’s request, the Public Affairs Department recently completed an informal
online survey to obtain public input on preferences for the scheduling and notification of public
meetings. The survey ran online from August 25 – October 13, and was promoted via the
website, social media, monthly newsletter, and the Interested Parties’ email list. The Interested
Parties’ list include individuals who are in the District’s database because they are interested in a
specific District preserve or project. A total of 209 responses were received.
Survey Highlights:
• Over 88% of the responses came from individuals on an Interested Parties email list.
• 67% of respondents live within District boundaries.
• Over 80% of respondents indicated they prefer weekday meetings.
• Preferred day is Wednesday (40%), and the preferred time 7:00 p.m. (47%).
• Respondents overwhelmingly prefer email notification (93%), but this is possibly skewed
by the fact that the survey was promoted and conducted online.
• A majority of respondents had attended a Midpen meeting (70%), which is not surprising
given the number of responses that came from Interested Parties.
• 68% of respondents visit a Midpen preserve on a weekly or monthly basis.
The Public Affairs Department has shared this information with District staff, and will encourage
the use of this information in scheduling future community meetings.
Survey Questions
1. What would be your preferred time of the week to attend a public meeting in your
neighborhood?
2. What would be your preferred day to attend a public meeting in your neighborhood on a
WEEKDAY?
3. What would be your preferred start time for a WEEKDAY meeting?
4. What would be your preferred day to attend a public meeting in your neighborhood on a
WEEKEND?
Question only asked of respondents who indicated a preference for Weekday Meeting
Question only asked of respondents who indicated a preference for Weekend Meeting
5. What would be your preferred start time for a WEEKEND meeting?
6. How would you prefer to be notified about public meetings?
7. Have you ever attended one of our Board Meetings or Public Meetings?
8. If no, why not?
Question only asked of respondents who have never attended a meeting.
9. How often do you visit Midpen preserves?
10. How do you use the preserves?
11. What is your Zip Code?
Total responses - Respondents were asked to select all applicable activities
From:Jennifer Woodworth
Subject:Board Questions Re: 11/16/16 Agenda
Date:Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:26:34 AM
Good morning all,
Please find responses below in blue to questions submitted for tonight’s Board meeting. Please let
me know if you have any other questions. Thank you.
Jen
Director Kishimoto
• what’s the status of the sidewalk/trail to connect from Costano to beginning of trail on
University Ave?
This connection is not part of the current project scope. The community’s interest in this trail
connection from Purdue Ave to the trailhead at University Ave has been communicated to the City
of East Palo Alto. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of East Palo Alto
and the District will address improved future community access to the Bay Trail.
• transit impact (p. 118) Has it been confirmed that proposed trail would have no impact on
future re-opening of Dumbarton Rail as active service? If no, include in this discussion?
The conceptual trail alignment is completely outside of the Samtrans right of way that is under
consideration as part of the Dumbarton Corridor. Staff have met with Samtrans staff to discuss the
project and have provided project status updates related to the IS/MND and easement approval.
Samtrans has not provided any comments or concern about this project or the proposed alignment’s
implications to the rail service.
Director Riffle
I have a question about Claim 73686. I thought the on-going maintenance of Mindego
Gateway was to be paid by POST?
The District is being reimbursed by POST for the ongoing maintenance at Mindego Gateway. We
compile invoices and maintenance logs at the end of each fiscal year and send them to POST for
reimbursement. The last check we received covered maintenance costs from April 2015 through
June 2016 and was in the amount of $21,517.50.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk/ Assistant to the General Manager
jwoodworth@openspace.org
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
E-mail correspondence with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (and attachments, if
any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to
public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.