The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20141217 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 14-35 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:00 p.m. A G E N D A 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – PUBLIC ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY • Introduction of District Staff: Elish Ryan CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Claims Report 2. Award of Contract for the Web Migration and Development Project (R-14-124) Staff Contact: Cydney Bieber, Website Administrator General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Rootid, of El Cerrito, CA, for an amount not-to-exceed $54,410, which includes the project proposal price of $49,410, and a 10% contingency amount of $5,000 to provide migration and development services for the District web site. 3. Acceptance of a Waterline Easement and Quitclaim Deed from William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust and a Waterline Easement and Quitclaim Deed from Stiles Family Trust, both at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 558-41-033 and 558-41-028), and Determine that the Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (R-14- 160) Staff Contact: Allen Ishibashi, Real Property Specialist Meeting 14-35 General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a waterline easement and quitclaim deed from William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust. 3. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a waterline easement and quitclaim deed from Stiles Family Trust. 4. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Proposed Harkins Bridge Replacement Project in Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-14-162) Staff Contact: Aaron Hébert, Contingent Project Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Harkins Bridge Replacement Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the draft Resolution. 5. Award of Contract for Environmental Analysis and Design for Stevens Creek Nature Trail Footbridges (R-14-152) Staff Contact: Aaron Hébert, Contingent Project Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Environmental Science Associates for an amount not-to-exceed $125,631, which includes a contract price of $114,210 and a 10% contingency of $11,421, to complete the environmental analysis and bridge design work for a footbridge replacement and a new footbridge along Stevens Creek Nature Trail in Montebello Open Space Preserve. 6. Contract to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-14-158) Staff Contact: Zachary Alexander, Planner II General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Asbestos Management Group Inc., of Oakland, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $43,670, which includes the base bid amount of $39,700 plus a 10% contingency amount of $3,970, to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. 7. Authorization to Award Contracts to Three Firms for Biological Consulting Services (R-14- 156) Staff Contact: Julie Andersen, Planner II General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to award contract amendments to Biological Monitoring and Assessment Specialists (BioMaAS), Biosearch Associates (Biosearch), and URS Corporation (URS) for an amount not-to-exceed $50,000 (each) to provide biological consulting services to implement biological services for District projects. BOARD BUSINESS 8a. Midyear Controller’s Report and General Manager’s State of the District Report for Fiscal Year 2014-15 (April - September 2014) (R-14-154) Board Contact: Yoriko Kishimoto, Chair, Action Plan and Budget Committee Action Plan & Budget Committee’s Recommendation: 1. Accept the Controller’s Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Financial Review for the six month period of April 1, 2014 thru September 30, 2014 (Item 9b). 2. Accept the General Manager’s FY2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report and approve the following recommended adjustments (Item 9c): a. The conversion of three contingent positions to permanent status b. A two-year extension for one contingent position c. The addition of three positions to support Measure AA implementation, and one position to support the newly approved Integrated Pest Management Program d. Net-zero budget shifts 8b. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report (R-14-155) Staff Contact: Michael Foster, Controller Controller’s Recommendation: Review and accept the attached Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report 8c. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report and Recommended Action Plan and Budget Adjustments (R-14-153) Staff Contact: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Accept the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report 9. Revisions to Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Policy (R-14-161) Staff Contact: Michael Foster, Controller and Andrew Taylor, Accountant Controller’s Recommendation: Approve the proposed revisions to the Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Board Policy. 10. Contract for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-14-159) Staff Contact: Gina Coony, Open Space Planner III General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Ashron Construction and Restoration, Inc., of Milpitas, CA, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $419,733, which includes a five percent contingency amount of no more than $20,000, to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDA • Additional Administrative Office Space • Public Affairs Assistant • Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study Update 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 TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. Consent Calendar: All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 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 and Regular Meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on December 12, 2014, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. Agenda materials are also available on the District’s website at http://www.openspace.org. Signed this 12th day of December, 2014, at Los Altos, California. REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:00 p.m. REVISED A G E N D A 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – PUBLIC ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY • Introduction of District Staff: Elish Ryan CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Claims Report 2. Award of Contract for the Web Migration and Development Project (R-14-124) Staff Contact: Cydney Bieber, Website Administrator General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Rootid, of El Cerrito, CA, for an amount not-to-exceed $54,410, which includes the project proposal price of $49,410, and a 10% contingency amount of $5,000 to provide migration and development services for the District web site. 3. Acceptance of a Waterline Easement and Quitclaim Deed from William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust and a Waterline Easement and Quitclaim Deed from Stiles Family Trust, both at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 558-41-033 and 558-41-028), and Determine that the Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (R-14- 160) Staff Contact: Allen Ishibashi, Real Property Specialist Meeting 14-35 General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a waterline easement and quitclaim deed from William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust. 3. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a waterline easement and quitclaim deed from Stiles Family Trust. 4. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Proposed Harkins Bridge Replacement Project in Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-14-162) Staff Contact: Aaron Hébert, Contingent Project Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Harkins Bridge Replacement Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the draft Resolution. 5. Award of Contract for Environmental Analysis and Design for Stevens Creek Nature Trail Footbridges (R-14-152) Staff Contact: Aaron Hébert, Contingent Project Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Environmental Science Associates for an amount not-to-exceed $125,631, which includes a contract price of $114,210 and a 10% contingency of $11,421, to complete the environmental analysis and bridge design work for a footbridge replacement and a new footbridge along Stevens Creek Nature Trail in Montebello Open Space Preserve. 6. Contract to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-14-158) Staff Contact: Zachary Alexander, Planner II General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Asbestos Management Group Inc., of Oakland, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $43,670, which includes the base bid amount of $39,700 plus a 10% contingency amount of $3,970, to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. 7. Authorization to Award Contracts to Three Firms for Biological Consulting Services (R-14- 156) Staff Contact: Julie Andersen, Planner II General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to award contract amendments to Biological Monitoring and Assessment Specialists (BioMaAS), Biosearch Associates (Biosearch), and URS Corporation (URS) for an amount not-to-exceed $50,000 (each) to provide biological consulting services to implement biological services for District projects. 8. Revisions to Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Policy (R-14-161) Staff Contact: Michael Foster, Controller and Andrew Taylor, Accountant Controller’s Recommendation: Approve the proposed revisions to the Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Board Policy. BOARD BUSINESS 89a. Midyear Controller’s Report and General Manager’s State of the District Report for Fiscal Year 2014-15 (April - September 2014) (R-14-154) Board Contact: Yoriko Kishimoto, Chair, Action Plan and Budget Committee Action Plan & Budget Committee’s Recommendation: 1. Accept the Controller’s Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Financial Review for the six month period of April 1, 2014 thru September 30, 2014 (Item 9b). 2. Accept the General Manager’s FY2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report and approve the following recommended adjustments (Item 9c): a. The conversion of three contingent positions to permanent status b. A two-year extension for one contingent position c. The addition of threefour positions to support Measure AA implementation, and one position to support the newly approved Integrated Pest Management Program d. Net-zero budget shifts 89b. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report (R-14-155) Staff Contact: Michael Foster, Controller Controller’s Recommendation: Review and accept the attached Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report 89c. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report and Recommended Action Plan and Budget Adjustments (R-14-153) Staff Contact: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Accept the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report 9. Revisions to Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Policy (R-14-161) Staff Contact: Michael Foster, Controller and Andrew Taylor, Accountant Controller’s Recommendation: Approve the proposed revisions to the Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Board Policy. 10. Contract for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-14-159) Staff Contact: Gina Coony, Open Space Planner III General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Ashron Construction and Restoration, Inc., of Milpitas, CA, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $419,733, which includes a five percent contingency amount of no more than $20,000, to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDA • Additional Administrative Office Space • Public Affairs Assistant • Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study Update 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 TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. Consent Calendar: All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 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 and Regular Meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on December 12, 2014, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. Agenda materials are also available on the District’s website at http://www.openspace.org. Signed this 12th day of December, 2014, at Los Altos, California. page 1 of 3 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 14-35 DATE 12-17-2014 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 68223 *10720 - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Annual Support for Deer Hollow Farm per Agreement With Sta Clara Co Park 12/10/2014 $50,000.00 68269 11432 - SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Slender False Brome Treatment 12/10/2014 $36,041.49 68279 10487 - TKO GENERAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION Mindego Ranch Grazing Water Infrastructure (RR)12/10/2014 $35,815.00 68243 11196 - HANFORD TOYOTA Purchase of New 2015 Toyota Tacoma Truck 12/10/2014 $34,739.03 68229 10540 - CRAFTSMEN PRINTING Printing of Newsletter and Brochures (SA/PC/FO)12/10/2014 $18,013.01 Printing of Business Cards for Employees 12/10/2014 Printing of Strategic Plan Flyer 12/10/2014 68283 *10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District Vehicles & Equipment 12/10/2014 $10,091.70 68233 10031 - DESIGN CONCEPTS Design of Preserve Brochures (RSA/RW/PCR/SR/SJH/WH)12/10/2014 $9,002.00 Design of Preserve Brochures (SA/FO/RR/SG) & Web Files for (RR/SG/LR)12/10/2014 Design for Preserve Brochures (MB/PR) & Web Files for (LHC)12/10/2014 Design for Bald Mountain Event Invite & Banner 12/10/2014 Design for Photo Contest Flyer 12/10/2014 Design for Strategic Plan Flyer 12/10/2014 Design for Picchetti Ranch Event invite 12/10/2014 Design for VRE Notecard, Web Forms New Logo 12/10/2014 Design for Newsletter & Outdoor Activities: Winter 2014 12/10/2014 68234 11455 - DITCH WITCH EQUIPMENT CO., INC.Canycom Track Carrier for trail work 12/10/2014 $7,327.04 68230 11445 - CROSS LAND SURVEYING INC.Record of Survey Along Mt. Umunhum Road (SAU)12/10/2014 $6,483.75 68220 10433 - CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION Annual Membership Dues 12/10/2014 $5,691.00 68216 10606 - ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL INC Hendrys Creek IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration Preparation (SAC)12/10/2014 $5,585.50 68219 11371 - CALFLORA DATABASE Weed Manager Database Development Project 12/10/2014 $4,677.00 68266 10099 - SAN FRANCISCO BAY BIRD OBSERVATORY Comprehensive Analysis of Montane Grassland Bird Communities 12/10/2014 $4,500.00 68282 10350 - VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS Conservation Easement Appraisal for Upper Alpine Ranch Area 12/10/2014 $4,250.00 68259 10461 - NORTHGATE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT Lysons Property - Phase I ESA 12/10/2014 $4,200.00 68231 10662 - DAVID J POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC Ridge Vineyard Exchange Environmental Review Services 12/10/2014 $3,567.34 68278 10069 - THE WILFRED JARVIS INSTITUTE Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness Training 12/10/2014 $3,475.00 Operations Department Retreat Facilitation 12/10/2014 68270 11089 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK RECORDER Notice of Determination Fee - IPM Program 12/10/2014 $3,079.75 68218 11418 - BARRERA'S BUILDERS Retainage Release - Roofing replacement project (AO)12/10/2014 $2,476.87 68248 10794 - JOHN NORTHMORE ROBERTS & ASSOC Construction Administration Bald Mtn Staging Area project (SAU)12/10/2014 $2,454.91 68258 10073 - NORMAL DATA Database Work - Incidents 12/10/2014 $2,428.75 Training Database Development Work 12/10/2014 Database Work - Permits 12/10/2014 68224 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Vehicle Inspection Check - M26 12/10/2014 $2,289.62 Vehicle Maintenance & Repair - P84/M76/P94/A90 12/10/2014 Dispose of & Install New Battery - P50 12/10/2014 68284 *11118 - WEX BANK Fuel for District Vehicles 12/10/2014 $2,142.12 68227 10023 - CONSCIOUS CREATIVE Website Design Refresh & Information 12/10/2014 $2,140.00 68274 10959 - STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL Annual Fee for Routine Maintenance MOU Permit 12/10/2014 $2,088.00 68250 11447 - LEADERSHIP DYNAMICS, INC.Public Affairs Team Meeting facilitation/Leadership Services 12/10/2014 $2,050.60 68214 *10128 - AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION Repeater Communication Site Lease-Coyote Peak 12/10/2014 $1,668.00 68276 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Uniform Items - Belt, Jacket & Liner, Shirts & Hats 12/10/2014 $1,598.63 page 2 of 3 68210 11459 - A.C. & H. CIVIL ENGINEERS INC Deck Repair for the Bergman Main House 12/10/2014 $1,500.00 68209 11434 - 2M ASSOCIATES Meeting Facilitation Services 10/01/14-11/15/14 12/10/2014 $1,422.95 68226 *10445 - COMMUNICATION & CONTROL INC Antenna Rental #1802 12/10/2014 $1,172.00 Utility Fee #1802 12/10/2014 68221 11443 - CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION Excavator Rental for Mt Umunhum Trail Construction (SAU)12/10/2014 $1,003.29 68256 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Fee for Removal of Radio & Repeater - P80 12/10/2014 $946.78 Radio Repair - M77/P88 12/10/2014 Relocate Radio - WT01 12/10/2014 68249 10490 - KOOPMANN, CLAYTON Reimbursment for California Cattlemen's Convention Expenses 12/10/2014 $879.34 68211 10004 - ACCOUNTEMPS Accounting Temp 12/10/2014 $814.58 68246 10046 - IHI ENVIRONMENTAL Industrial Hygenist Review of Air Monitoring Results 12/10/2014 $760.00 68217 11369 - BANK OF THE WEST COMMERCIAL CARD USA $756.58 -Trucking Services for Water Delivery & Portable Heaters 12/10/2014 $756.58 68236 10654 - DUTRA MATERIALS Gravel and Rock for Ancient Oaks Trail (RR)12/10/2014 $694.18 68261 10090 - PRO-INSTALLERS Installation of Wood Stove at Rental Residence 12/10/2014 $664.25 68277 10338 - THE ED JONES CO INC District Ranger Badges 12/10/2014 $660.52 68272 10102 - SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP CEQA Legal Review for Ridge Vineyards Exchange 12/10/2014 $638.00 Ridge Vineyards - Project Management Support 12/10/2014 68247 11106 - INTELLI-TECH Fire Annual Maintenance Fee - IT 12/10/2014 $624.00 68242 10344 - GREG'S TRUCKING SERVICE INC Gravel and Rock for Ancient Oaks Trail (RR)12/10/2014 $547.05 68264 10130 - ROESSLER, CINDY Mileage Reimbursement 12/10/2014 $455.21 Cell Phone (July - Nov 2014)12/10/2014 68235 10441 - DTSC Annual EPA fees 12/10/2014 $415.00 68281 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Services for Mindego Hill Trail Work Area (RR)12/10/2014 $413.66 68215 10010 - ARRANGED4COMFORT Ergo Items for J. Gibbons, J. Amato, L. Hernandez, and C. Lau 12/10/2014 $409.85 68241 10345 - GLOBAL STEEL FABRICATORS INC Sign Plates for Gates at Bald Mt. Parking Lot (SAU)12/10/2014 $397.85 68222 10496 - CHUNG, JEAN Mileage Reimbursement 12/10/2014 $392.56 68257 10774 - MICHAEL DEMPSEY, PATRICK DEMPSEY Water Delivery - Rental Residence 12/10/2014 $360.00 68273 10954 - SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY Field Training Officer (FTO) Class for Three Rangers 12/10/2014 $345.00 68238 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Keys (SAU)12/10/2014 $315.16 Keys for New Truck Utility Boxes 12/10/2014 68263 10194 - REED & GRAHAM INC 5 Gallon Crackfiller for Mora Road (RSA)12/10/2014 $296.34 68232 10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitorial Supplies (AO)12/10/2014 $279.84 68268 11429 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT Vinyl Signs for Bald Mtn Staging Area (SAU)12/10/2014 $250.70 68237 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Field Supplies (GP)12/10/2014 $241.35 68228 10185 - COSTCO Staff Recognition Event & Office Suppplies 12/10/2014 $240.04 68225 10021 - COASTAL CHIMNEY SWEEP Chimney Sweep Services at Rental Residence 12/10/2014 $230.00 68260 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Wiper Blades/Washer Fluid for Maintenance Vehicles (FFO &AO)12/10/2014 $206.40 Motor Oil (GP)12/10/2014 68271 11117 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY/CITIES MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION General Manager's Office Attendance at SCCCMA Event 12/10/14 12/10/2014 $200.00 68275 11232 - STEVENSON, HILARY Mileage Reimbursement-CalPelra Conference November 2014 12/10/2014 $192.42 68244 10222 - HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL INC Planer Equipment Rental (SAU)12/10/2014 $179.44 68251 11326 - LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDER Subscription Online Service Nov 2014 12/10/2014 $178.00 68265 10151 - SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC Solvent Tank Service (FFO)12/10/2014 $158.80 68240 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Chainsaw Supplies (FFO/SAO)12/10/2014 $152.75 68267 11054 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Supervisor Training Course - Laustsen, Gretchen 12/10/2014 $150.00 68280 10201 - TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP CO Repair Parts for Tractor - T22 12/10/2014 $141.11 68239 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)12/10/2014 $137.84 68212 10380 - ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #925 Garbage Services - Rental Residence 12/10/2014 $121.09 68245 10421 - ID PLUS INC Employee Name Tags 12/10/2014 $99.50 68213 10815 - AMERICAN RED CROSS Emergency Medical Responder Review Class 12/10/2014 $76.00 68252 10189 - LIFE ASSIST First Aid Supplies (GP)12/10/2014 $56.94 page 3 of 3 68262 10299 - RANCHO COBBLER & CLEANER Sew Patches on Uniform Shirts 12/10/2014 $48.00 68255 11366 - MADE BY TESS EMBROIDERY Jacket Embroidery/Print 12/10/2014 $43.50 68254 11154 - LOS ALTOS POLICE FALSE ALARM REDUCTION PROGRAM Annual Alarm Permit (AO)12/10/2014 $37.00 68253 10440 - LOS ALTOS HARDWARE Tools for trucks 12/10/2014 $16.95 Total $288,197.93 *Annual Claims BC = Bear Creek LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap TC = Tunitas Creek CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge PC = Purisima Creek SA = Sierra Azul WH = Windy Hill ECdM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio SR= Skyline Ridge AO = Administrative Office 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 PR = Picchetti Ranch SJH = St Joseph's Hill TW = Thornewood SAO = South Area Outpost RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill R-14-124 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract for the Web Migration and Development Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Rootid, of El Cerrito, CA, for an amount not-to-exceed $54,410, which includes the project proposal price of $49,410, and a 10% contingency amount of $5,000 to provide migration and development services for the District web site. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s website is currently operating on a backend platform system written in 2000 and should be updated to enhance reliability and performance, and allow for design edits. The General Manager recommends the selection of the web development firm Rootid to conduct the content migration and web development contract services for a not-to-exceed amount of $54,410. Completion of a website migration is part of the Public Affairs Fiscal Year 2014-15 Action Plan and Budget, which includes sufficient funds to cover the recommended award of contract. DISCUSSION The District’s website is the primary communication tool to provide important up-to-date information and resources to District constituents, visitors, contractors, job seekers and other agencies. The platform on which the website is based was developed in 2000, and is nearly fifteen years old. The current platform makes it difficult to update the site and add functionality. In addition, the current format of the website does not display well on mobile devices, which account for over 35% of site visitation. The percentage of visits on mobile devices has increased nearly 40% in the past year, a trend which is expected to continue. The Web Migration and Development Project will update the backend system and move the content so that it is easier to use, less expensive to maintain and takes advantage of features such as mobile device compatibility. This update will also improve database functionality, include an events registration system and allow for a refresh of the overall site without substantially changing the look and feel that the public and Board have come to enjoy. Selection Process An RFP was released on October 3, 2014. Eleven firms submitted proposals by the October 27 deadline that ranged in cost from $31,750 to $77,205. In accordance with the Board and R-14-124 Page 2 Administrative policies regarding selection of professional consultants, the District evaluated the eleven proposals and identified four that best fit the requested criteria according to their qualifications. Cost cannot be the primary criterion for selecting professional services consultants. These firms were C4 Tech & Design (New Orleans), Chapter Three (San Francisco), Confluence (Washington, DC), and Rootid (El Cerrito). All four firms were interviewed by teleconference or in person by the Public Affairs Manager, Public Affairs Specialist and Website Administrator. The team unanimously selected Rootid, an award-winning firm that provides web development services across the country, focusing on clients in the environmental community, non-profit and socially responsible business industries. Rootid offers over 35 years of experience in custom web development, marketing and communications for corporate and non-profit organizations. In both the RFP and interview process, Rootid demonstrated an understanding of the District and its website needs and proposed thoughtful and innovative solutions for web development. Rootid was also the lowest bidder among the top four firms. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This agenda item was not previously reviewed by a Committee. FISCAL IMPACT The FY2014-15 Public Affairs Budget includes $50,000 for the Web Migration and Development Project. The total cost of this contract is for a not-to-exceed amount of $54,410. Any additional funds above the $50,000 will be reassigned from within the Special Projects budget with no change to the overall Public Affairs budget. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Upon Board authorization, the General Manager will enter into a contract with Rootid to perform web migration and development services. Project kick-off is scheduled to begin in January 2015. Completion of the project and launch of the updated website is scheduled for May 2015. Responsible Department Head: Shelly Lewis, Public Affairs Manager Prepared by: Cydney Bieber, Website Administrator R-14-160 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Acceptance of a Waterline Easement and Quitclaim Deed from William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust and a Waterline Easement and Quitclaim Deed from Stiles Family Trust, both at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 558-41-033 and 558-41-028), and Determine that the Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a waterline easement and quitclaim deed from William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust and Stiles Family Trust. SUMMARY As part of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release between the William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust (Chiocchi), Stiles Family Trust (Stiles), Presentation Center and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District), Chiocchi and Stiles were required to execute and deliver waterline easements to the District/Presentation Center for the Alma Water System as it crosses their property and quitclaim deeds relinquishing all rights to the Alma Water System. To this end, the General Manager recommends accepting and executing the waterline easements and accepting the quitclaim deeds from Chiocchi and Stiles, which are the only unresolved conditions in the settlement agreement. These actions would have no fiscal impact to the District’s budget. DISCUSSION Background In September of 1989, Hong Kong Metro Realty (HKMR) acquired lands on both sides of Highway 17 along Bear Creek Road and Old Santa Cruz Highway. The 1,071 acre HKMR property west of Highway 17 was purchased by the District in 1999 and 2000 establishing the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (see reports R-99-07, R-99-92 and R-00-111). Presentation Center owned and operated a retreat center adjacent to and west of the HKMR property west of Highway 17. In October of 1989, the Loma Prieta Earthquake damaged the water system that served the land owned by HKMR and the Presentation Center. In December of 1990, the Presentation Center secured a grant from the Red Cross to install a new water R-14-160 Page 2 system (“Alma Water System”). In order to secure the needed rights for the Alma Water System to cross HKMR’s property, the Presentation Center entered into a Water Agreement in 1993 with HKMR that included the ability for the Alma Water System to serve future development on the HKMR’s land west of Highway 17. The Alma Water System was not intended to serve the HKMR properties east of the highway. The water system that was developed consisted of a line that connected to a San Jose Water main near Lexington Reservoir and pumped water over the HKMR property east of Highway 17 via a 6-inch line up to a 500,000 gallon holding tank on HKMR property west of Highway 17 and finally up to the Presentation Center Property. Under the 1993 Water Agreement between Presentation Center and HKMR, a number of easements were to be granted to the Presentation Center for the Alma Water System as it crossed HKMR property, but for reasons unknown at this time only the easement west of Highway 17 was recorded. The HKMR property east of Highway 17 was never encumbered with formal waterline easements. The Alma Water System operated without any major issues and exclusively served the Presentation Center’s property until 2007. HKMR sold its property to Arlie Land and Cattle Company (Arlie) in 1998 and the District subsequently purchased the land west of Highway 17 from Arlie in 1999. With this purchase, the District became a shared 50% owner in the Alma Water System with the Presentation Center. Through a series of transactions, Arlie sold its property east of Highway 17 and Chiocchi and Stiles purchased several former Arlie parcels along Old Santa Cruz Highway in 2005 and 2003. In 2007, Chiocchi and Stiles initiated a lawsuit seeking to access the private Alma Water System owned by the District and Presentation Center that ran through their property. Prior to or during the lawsuit, Chiocchi and Stiles illegally hooked into the Alma Water System to serve their single family residential developments (Chiocchi completed their home in 2007 and Stiles has not yet completed his development). In 2009, with the District and Presentation Center’s motion for summary judgment pending, Chiocchi and Stiles agreed to disconnect from the Alma Water System and connect to the municipal San Jose Water system. In March of 2012, Chiochi and Stiles still had not disconnected from the Alma Water System and the District and Presentation Center were forced to file a new lawsuit. Settlement Agreement In August 2013, the District, Chiocchi, Stiles and Presentation Center executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (Settlement Agreement) of the District/Presentation Center lawsuit that was filed in 2012. As part of the Agreement Chiocchi/Stiles agreed to: 1. Pay the District and Presentation Center $75,000; 2. Remove all current connections from the Alma Water System; 3. Execute a disclaimer for any and all interests in the Alma Water System; 4. Grant easements for the Alma Water System line as it crosses the Chiocchi and Stiles properties; and, 5. Execute quitclaim deeds to all rights they may have to the Alma Water System. The 2012 District/Presentation Center lawsuit was dismissed on October 2, 2014 as all of the conditions in the Settlement Agreement were satisfied. The only outstanding items are the formal acceptance and execution of the waterline easements and the acceptance of the quitclaim deeds. Waterline Easements R-14-160 Page 3 The Chiocchi and Stiles properties are located east of Highway 17 and therefore these properties were never formally burdened with easements for the Alma Water System line as it crossed the properties despite the 1993 Water Agreement anticipating this grant. As part of the Settlement Agreement, it was agreed that formal easements for the current alignment of the Alma Water System line would be granted by Chiocchi and Stiles to the District and Presentation Center. Quitclaim Deeds Under the Settlement Agreement Chiocchi and Stiles agreed that they have no deeded or formal rights to the Alma Water System. The Quitclaim Deeds executed by Chiocchi and Stiles relinquish any current or future rights to the Alma Water system to the District and Presentation Center. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW There was no Committee review for this agenda item. This item has come to the full Board on many occasions in the past in closed session. FISCAL IMPACT The acceptance and execution of the waterline easements and quitclaim deeds have no fiscal impact to the District’s budget. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Adjacent property owners were also mailed a copy of the meeting agenda. CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of accepting and executing waterline easements and quitclaims deeds for the existing District and Presentation Center owned Alma Water System. CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Article 19, Sections 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows: Section 15301 exempts operation, repair, restoration, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. The acceptance and execution of the waterline easements and quitclaim deeds are for an existing water system that was constructed and installed in 1993. The alignment and location of the waterline in the easements and quitclaim deeds is not being altered. The project is also exempt under 15061(b)(3), as there is no possibility the actions can have a significant effect on the environment. R-14-160 Page 4 NEXT STEPS Pending Board approval, the easements and quitclaim deeds would be executed and delivered for recording. Attachments 1. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a waterline easement and quitclaim deed from William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust and Stiles Family Trust 2. Location Map Responsible Department Head: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager, Real Property Department Contact person: Allen L. Ishibashi, Real Property Specialist Graphics prepared by: Jon Montgomery, Planning Technician Attachment 1 Resolutions/2014/14-___Chiocchi & Stiles 1 RESOLUTION NO. 14-__ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (DISTRICT) APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, GENERAL MANAGER, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICER TO ACCEPT AND EXECUTE A WATERLINE EASEMENT WITH WILLIAM AND ADRIANA CHIOCCHI LIVING TRUST, EXECUTE A CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR THE QUITCLAIM DEED TO THE DISTRICT, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, GENERAL MANAGER, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICER TO ACCEPT AND EXECUTE A WATERLINE EASEMENT WITH STILES FAMILY TRUST, EXECUTE A CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR THE QUITCLAIM DEED TO THE DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION (BEAR CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE – WILLIAM AND ADRIANA CHIOCCHI LIVING TRUST AND STILES FAMILY TRUST) The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: Section One. The General Manager, President of the Board or other appropriate officer is authorized to execute the waterline easement to District and certificates of acceptance for quitclaim deed with William and Adriana Chiocchi Living Trust. Section Two. The General Manager, President of the Board or other appropriate officer is authorized to execute the waterline easement to District and certificates of acceptance for quitclaim deed with Stiles Family Trust. Section Three. The General Manager and General Counsel are authorized to execute any and all other documents necessary or appropriate to the closing of the transactions approved in this Resolution. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve minor or technical revisions to the waterline easements and quitclaim deeds that do not involve any substantial changes to any terms of the easements and quitclaim deeds, and which are necessary or appropriate to the closing or implementation of these transactions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ______, 2014, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Attachment 1 Resolutions/2014/14-___Chiocchi & Stiles 2 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 +R CHIOCCHI55841033 STILES55841028 CHIOCCHI55841031 1000 800 100 0 800 B r i g gs C r e e k A l d e r c r o f t Creek Brig g s Creek Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District Chiocchi/Stiles Settlement December, 2014 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ B e a r _ C r e e k _ R e d w o o d s \ C h i o c c h i S t i l e s \ C h i o c c h i S t i l e s . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : j m o n t g o m e r y 0 0.20.1MilesI (MROSD)Highlighted PropertyMROSD Preserves Private Property Developed Land 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. Watershed Land ! Si e r r aAzu l Area ofDetail £¤17 £¤17 A l m a L ake LexingtonReservoir Other Public Agency Easement Alma Waterline WaterTank Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve £¤85 £¤35 ElSe re n o Los Gatos O l d S a n t a Cruz Hig hway Easement Attachment 2 R-14-162 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Proposed Harkins Bridge Replacement Project in Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Harkins Bridge Replacement Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the draft Resolution. SUMMARY The proposed Harkins Bridge Replacement Project (Project) would replace an existing deteriorated railcar vehicle bridge with a new prefabricated truss vehicle bridge 100’ upstream. The Project entails demolition of an existing 60’ of access road to the old bridge location, site restoration of the area of the old bridge location, construction of a temporary culvert crossing with associated water diversion plan, construction of a new access roadway and trail to the proposed bridge, and temporary fencing along Purisima Creek Trail to exclude the public from the construction zone. Staff has concluded, based on the environmental review, that the proposed project would have no significant effect on the environment as mitigated. This project is funded by Measure AA. This project is part of portfolio 3, Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing. The Harkins Bridge Replacement Project is part of the Public Access theme. DISCUSSION This Project was presented to the Board on April 23rd, at which time the Board heard a staff presentation about the project and approved a prefabricated truss bridge as the preferred alternative (R-14-76). Staff subsequently entered into contract with Questa Engineering to begin the site investigations, design and permitting process. Hydrologic analysis of the existing bridge crossing indicated it will be subject to localized flooding. Relocation of the bridge 100’ upstream avoids flooding potential and involves minimal modifications to the existing road and trail system. The project has progressed from the conceptual phase to the 50% design stage. Staff and Questa met with the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the field to begin informal consultation in advance of the permits. Staff met with the San Mateo County Planning Department to consult on the Coastal Development Permit process. Staff and Questa have submitted a permit application to the Army Corps and aim to initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS. R-14-162 Page 2 The particular nature of the project’s construction activities and a biological assessment for the project area suggested an Initial Study (IS) and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be circulated for public comment. No comments were received. Mitigations to avoid potential impacts to California red-legged frog (on site monitoring and contractor training), San Francisco Dusky Footed Woodrats (preconstruction surveys and fencing) and marbeled murrelets (no construction during dawn and dusk hours) are incorporated into this project. Standard mitigations to avoid impacts to cultural resources and hazards (wildfire) are also incorporated into this project. The Operations Department is the party responsible for monitoring. A complete list can be seen in Attachment 3. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) commits the District to biological monitoring during construction. The duration and cost of that monitoring, however, is dependent on the permit conditions of the Section 7 consultation with USFWS. Estimates for biological monitoring range from $10,000 to $30,000. $110,000 is budgeted for FY2014-15 for this project for design, permitting, and engineering and staff anticipates budgeting $500,000 for FY2015-16, the majority of which will be for construction costs. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This Project was presented to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee on April 15th at which time the Committee heard a staff presentation about the project and recommended a prefabricated truss bridge as the preferred alternative to the Board. PUBLIC NOTICE A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on October 17th, 2014, stating that the public review period would start on October 17th, 2014, and end on November 17th, 2014. On October 17th, 2014, the Notice of Intent was also submitted to the San Mateo County Clerk for posting and mailed to interested parties, and property owners of land located adjacent to or within 300 feet of the Preserve boundary closest to the project. The Notice of Intent, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Initial Study were made available for public review at the District’s Administrative Office and on the District’s website. Notices were also posted at the proposed project site, located near a major trail of the Preserve. All legal notice requirements of CEQA have been met. Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. Also, adjoining property owners have been mailed a copy of the agenda for this public meeting. CEQA COMPLIANCE An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were prepared for the Project (Attachment 2). The public comment period began on October 17, 2014, and ended on November 17, 2014. R-14-162 Page 3 Determination Mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed project reduce potential negative effects to biological resources, cultural resources, and hazards (wildfire) to less-than-significant levels. The proposed project will therefore not have a significant effect on the environment. Comments Received The District did not receive any comments on the environmental effects of the proposed project. Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with CEQA, the District has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program, which describes project-specific mitigation measures and monitoring process (Attachment 3). The Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented during construction and monitored afterwards (erosion control and replanting specifically). The proposed project incorporates all of these mitigation measures. CEQA Findings The Board Findings required by CEQA to adopt the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring Program are set out in the attached Resolution (Attachment 4). Staff recommends that the Board find that the environmental review for the Harkins Bridge Replacement Project is adequate. NEXT STEPS Next steps include Coastal Development Permit application to San Mateo County, finalizing bridge specifications and railing design, building permit applications (75% design), bidding, and the Board considering approval of the construction contract. The driving factor in the project schedule is the Army Corps permit and the Section 7 consultation with USFWS. This process can range from 6-18 months. The General Manager will be recommending funding for construction in the FY2015-16 budget in the event the permits are received in time. If bidding, Board approval, and construction are not possible before the winter work window closes, then construction would occur in FY2016-17. Attachments: 1. Project Map 2. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4. Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Findings in Connection with the Proposed Harkins Bridge Replacement Project (Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve) Responsible Department Manager: Michael Newburn, Operations Manager Prepared by: Aaron Hébert, Contingent Project Manager McGov e r n R i d g e McGov e r n R i d g e Pise Hill 2 Pise Lookout Hig g i n s C a n y o n Hig g i n s C a n y o n Purisima CreekRedwoods Madonna CreekRanch Miramontes RidgeOpen Space Preserve Burleigh H. MurrayRanch State Park ElkusRanch Crystal Springs Watershed(City and Co. of San Francisco Water Co.) Purisima CreekRedwoodsOpen SpacePreserve BlueBrush Purisima Creek Rd Higgins C a n y o n R d P u r i s i m a CreekTrail N o r t h R i d g e T rail H ar k i ns RidgeTrailWhittemoreGulchTrail B a l d Knob T r a i l Craig B r i t t o n T r a i l IrishRidgeTrail GrabtownGulc h T r ail B ordenHatchMillTrail L o b i t o s Creek Tra il G r a b t o w n G u l c h T r a i l Purisi m a Creek A rroyo Leon Lobito s Creek T u n i t a s C r e e k M ills C r e e k Mitchel C r e e k M i tc h e l C r e e k M ill s C r e e k Purisima Creek Arro y o Leon Mill s C r e e k Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District Harkins Project Location Map July, 2014 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ P u r i s i m a _ C r e e k _ R e d w o o d s \ P u r i s i m a C r e e k B r i d g e s \ P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n V 2 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : a h e b e r t 0 0.50.25MilesI (MROSD)Other Protected Open Spaceor Park Lands Management Agreement Non MROSD Conservation or Agricultural Easement MROSD Conservationor Agricultural Easement MROSD Preserves Private Property Developed Land 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. Watershed Land ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !San Mateo Area ofDetail ^_ Project Location Attachment 1 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Harkins Bridge Replacement Project Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve San Mateo County, CA October 17th 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 650-691-1200 Attachment 2 Table of Contents PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................1 FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ......................................................3 MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT ..........................................................................3 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION .....................................................................................................6 INITIAL STUDY ...................................................................................................................................................6 REVIEW PERIOD .................................................................................................................................................6 CONTACT PERSON .............................................................................................................................................6 INITIAL STUDY ......................................................................................................................................................7 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1Purpose of Initial Study 1.2 Decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.3Regulatory Review and Permitting 1.4 Public Review Process 1.5 Organization of the Document SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................7 2.1 LOCATION 2.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2.3 SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS ..............................................................................................................................9 2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES .......................................................................................................................9 SECTION 3; ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: .......................................................................15 DETERMINATION: ................................................................................................................................................ INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:............................................. 16 SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS .....................................17 I. AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................... 17 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ........................................................................ 25 III. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................... 26 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 32 1. Special Status Plant Species ........................................................................................................... 32 2. Special Status Animal Species ....................................................................................................... 33 V. CULTURAL, HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................. 40 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................... 44 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................. 48 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................................................... 53 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................................ 57 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................... 60 XII NOISE ................................................................................................................................................... 61 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................................................... 64 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 65 XV. RECREATION ..................................................................................................................................... 66 i Attachment 2 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ......................................................................................................... 68 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 72 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................................. 74 Figures Figure 1: Regional Location Map Figure 2: Existing Conditions Figure 3: Proposed Bridge Figure 4: Proposed Bridge Profile Figure 5: Proposed Restoration Area Where Existing Bridge Removed Figure 6: Photo of Existing Bridge Looking Upstream Figure 7. Photo of Riparian Vegetation at the Southern Approach of the Proposed Bridge Figure 8: Photo from Higgins-Purisima Centerline Looking Towards Project Site Figure 9. Photo of Trees at the North Approach of the Proposed Bridge (Alders visible right) Figure 10: Photo of Existing Staging Area and Vault Toilet Appendices Appendix A: Biotic Assessment and Riparian Delineation Appendix B: Harkins Bridge Geotechnical Investigation Report. Appendix C: Harkins Bridge Relocation Study Appendix D: Marbeled Murrelet Habitat Assessment and Management Recommendations Appendix E: Archaeological Review ii Attachment 2 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District PROPOSED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code 21,000, et seq.) that the District proposes to determine that the Harkins Bridge Replacement Project, when implemented, will not have a significant impact on the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses The Harkin Bridge Replacement Project site is located approximately 100 yards east of the intersection of Higgins Canyon Road and Purisima Creek Road, on the Whittemore Gulch Trail, in the Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve. Figure 1, Area Map, shows the regional context of the project site. Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve is an 4,711-acre preserve that includes a 24-mile trail system for hikers, bikers, and equestrians. Purisima Creek, a large perennial stream, flows from the top of the Preserve at Skyline Blvd (Highway 35) down to the coastal terraces south of Half Moon Bay. The project site is located at the very western extent of the Preserve, adjacent to the only public parking from the coastside of the Preserve. Project Goals and Objectives The Project involves the removal and replacement of a deteriorated railroad car bridge crossing over Purisima Creek, which would entail demolition of an existing access road to the old bridge location, site restoration of the area of the old bridge location; construction of a temporary culvert crossing with associated water diversion plan; installation of a new bridge, construction of a new access roadway and trail to the proposed bridge, and temporary fencing along Purisima Creek Trail to exclude the public from construction activities. The project goals and objectives are as follows: • Remove the existing deteriorated bridge over Purisima Creek and restore the bridge approaches and bridge area to reduce soil erosion. • Construct a new bridge and associated new access roadway approximately 100 feet upstream of the existing bridge that will improve public safety for the District with safe vehicular access for patrol, fire and other emergency vehicles. Project Characteristics Project implementation would involve removing the existing 60-foot long, steel bridge and replacing it with a 60-foot-long, prefabricated steel bridge upstream of the current location. The project is shown in Figures 2 to 6. The existing bridge is deteriorating and can no longer safely carry significant vehicle loads. The current bridge serves as a crossing for patrol, fire, and other emergency vehicles. These vehicles can be quite heavy, so the bridge has to be able to carry those loads safely. The new bridge will entail the construction of structural concrete abutments (drilled piers), and maintaining adequate turning radius and grades on the new approaches to the bridge. Approximately 15 feet of the Whitmore Gulch Trail will be realigned to approach the proposed bridge from the north and approximately 60 feet of the Purisima Creek Trail will be realigned to approach the proposed bridge from the south. 1 Attachment 2 The bridge replacement project involves working in an approximately 180-foot reach of Purisima Creek that is approximately 20 to 50 feet wide. The project construction footprint for the old and new bridge location is approximately 3,500 square feet (0.08 acres). Approximately 0.01 acres of riparian vegetation removal will be required around the proposed bridge approaches primarily on the southern end and around the northern end, as seen as Figure 7 and 9. Two alder trees (12” and 20” dbh) are proposed for removal adjacent to the proposed northern bridge approach, as seen in Figure 3 and 8. In this river reach the river banks are 8 to 10 feet high; however the channel bottom is significantly wider downstream of the proposed new bridge. The slope along the reach is approximately 2.2%. The large downed redwood tree immediately downstream of existing bridge restricts high storm flows. This restriction causes storm flows to back up and flood the adjacent approach to the existing bridge. The existing bridge will be replaced with a new bridge approximately 100 feet upstream of the existing bridge. The southern concrete abutment and wingwall will be constructed entirely outside the stream channel and above the 100-year flood event elevation. The northern abutment and wing wall are to be built just below the break in slope of the stream channel, but above the elevation of an 100-year flood event, as seen in Figure 4. Grading for this project is limited to both bridge approaches and minor recontouring for slope stabilization and restoration purposes around the existing bridge. The quantities of excavation and fill are detailed below, under Project Implementation, f. New Construction, and seen in Figures 3 and 4. Almost all of the grading will occur within soils that were previously disturbed by the construction of the log landing built in approximately the 1850s. In addition to the removal and replacement of the bridge, the design includes the restoration of the old bridge location with native vegetation, and new bio-technically stabilized slopes. More detailed information regarding the various phases of the proposed project is provided below. Project Implementation a. Construction Timeline. Construction activities would occur over a 16 to 24 week period, beginning and ending between April 1 to December 31st. Construction hours would be limited to one and half hours after sunrise to one and a half hours before sunset on weekdays and weekends during marbeled murrelet nesting season (April 1st to September 15th), after which construction would be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm during weekdays and 9:00 am to 5:00pm on Saturday, as described in mitigation measure BIO-5. b. Construction Access. The site would be accessed from Purisima Canyon Road, directly off Highway 1. Construction vehicles would utilize Purisima Creek Road in order to access the site and haul materials from the site. A temporary culvert crossing and road would be constructed at the existing bridge crossing to allow vehicular access to the other side of Purisima Creek for construction activities. c. Construction Equipment. The project would require the use of heavy equipment, such as cranes, excavators, loaders, backhoes, water trucks, dump trucks and fuel tanks. d. Grading and Erosion Control. Grading and other earth-disturbing activities proposed project would be limited to the dry season (generally between April 15 and October 15). Construction will be supervised by experienced District staff and engineering consultants and would incorporate erosion control techniques from the District’s Details and Specifications Guidelines. In addition, Best Management Practices (BMPs) approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2 Attachment 2 and Regional Water Quality Control Board and in use by the District for proper design and use of silt fencing, would be implemented during project construction to avoid impacts such as erosion at the project site. Channel erosion potential would change over time as the planted vegetation matures. Typically, the erosion potential of the channel and banks decreases as the project ages, and mature, stable vegetation is established. Approaches that integrate vegetation and biodegradable products such as fiber blankets, bio-blocks, and coir products will be used. The biodegradable products are used to provide temporary erosion protection and allow for the vegetation to mature and provide the primary erosion control within 3 to 5 years, giving re-vegetation plantings time to establish. The channel banks along the riffles and grade control structures will be planted with willow and alder stakes to ensure that vegetation cover becomes part of the overall channel structure. Additional riparian planting will be completed on the floodplain and channel banks to ensure long term stability of the channel. e. Demolition. As part of the proposed project, the existing bridge and access road (approximately 0.03 acres) would be demolished and the rubble would be hauled off site to an appropriate refuse and recycling facility. Demolition of the affected portion of the road would generate approximately 200 cubic yards of waste. The existing bridge is a 60-foot long, 12-foot wide old railroad car steel bridge that would be demolished and hauled offsite. Tarps would be placed underneath the bridge during demolition to prevent debris from entering the creek. Dirt from the bridge fill would be temporarily stored on an adjacent staging area, and suitable soil would later be used as backfill fill for the restoration of the old bridge site. Generally, significant trees on the site are being avoided; however the project will entail the removal of two alder trees. f. Staging. Once the bridge, fill, and road are removed from the site, a temporary dirt access road to the channel bed will be constructed to allow access to the other side of the creek. Two (2) 18 inch pipes will be installed across the active creek and a temporary crossing will be constructed to allow for construction traffic to the north abutment. Clean gravel and soil fill will be used to construct the temporary crossing. A staging area will be established on the southern side of the construction area where materials and equipment will be stored. The temporary dirt access road and staging area are shown in Figure 3. g. Project Site Water Diversion and Fish Exclusion Plan. A creek flow bypass will be required during the majority of construction activities. The proposed flow bypass system will collect all of the creek flow and provide a temporary crossing via two 18” culverts for construction equipment at the original bridge location. Only resident trout use Purisma Creek. There are no steelheads present. A qualified fish biologist will install a fish exclusion net prior to in-channel work at the upper boundary of the in-stream construction area. Any fish below the exclusion with be flushed downstream and a net will be installed at the southern boundary of the construction area. Once the temporary stream crossing is constructed, the fish exclusion netting will be removed. The same fish exclusion process will repeated during the temporary crossing removal. A series of silt fence and water barriers will be installed at the base of the banks of each new bridge abutment. These fences will direct the flowing water away from the work away so a dry working environment can be preserved. The anticipated length of channel flow control is approximately 180 linear feet. The Contractor will develop a diversion plan and ensure that all materials and equipment will be available for the water diversion prior to the commencement of work. The water diversion system should include the following components: 3 Attachment 2 • Confinement Structure • Bypass Piping/Pipeline • Point of Discharge Protection (as needed) Upon completion of the construction all diversion and temporary crossing material will be removed from the streambed. e. Temporary Trail Access . The Contractor will fence off the southern side of the construction area to preserve a 10 feet wide road and trail width for visitors using Purisima Creek trail. Visitors using the Whittemore Gulch and Harkins Ridge trail that desire to access the parking lot or Purisima Creek trail will have to use the temporary culvert crossing. A brief period between the demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the temporary culvert crossing will close access over Purisima Creek. Appropriate signs would be posted at trailheads and along the temporary trail to provide warning to the public of the temporary closure, construction vehicles and information on the project status and advise cyclists to walk their bikes. f. New Bridge Construction. Once removal of the bridge and temporary road crossing is complete, construction on the bridge will begin. Vertical and denuded banks downstream of the bridge will be stabilized and replanted using locally harvested willow and alder stakes in combination with biodegradable erosion control products. The new bridge will be built upon two new lateral foundations from either side of the creek at the top of bank. The bridge structure itself will be a prefabricated metal bridge 60 feet long and 15 feet wide. The foundations will be installed first, and then the bridge will be assembled on-site and dropped into place with a crane. New approach roadway, approximately 0.03 acres, will be graded and compacted. Backfill will be placed and compacted; road base and will then be installed in the last 18 inches of depth. All disturbed areas will be seeded and/or revegetated to prevent soil erosion. Disturbed bank slopes will be seeded and covered with erosion control blankets. Construction Material Description= Unit, Quantity 1. Remove Bridge = 200 Cubic Yards (CY) 2. Structural Excavation= 53 CY 3. Structural Backfill = 185 CY 4. Class 2 Aggregate Base= 20 CY 5. Structural Concrete= 40 CY 6. Reconstructed channel (soil/rock) = 42 CY Construction Sequence. The following sequence of construction task will take place. 1. Project site mobilization 2. Biologic surveys, education, monitoring 3. Signage, grading and establishment of temporary access ways 4. Construction of dewatering/diversion system 5. Project site water diversion and biological monitoring and fish relocation 6. Bridge, roadway demolition, and fill excavation 4 Attachment 2 7. Temporary access road and crossing installation 8. Bridge foundation construction 9. Place backfill and headwalls 10. Construct roadway 11. Assemble and install bridge 13. Remove detour; decommission temporary access road; complete erosion control 14. Final site planting and punchlist 15. Site cleanup and demobilization FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that: 1. The mitigation measures, as listed below and incorporated into the project, are adequate to mitigate the environmental effects to a less than significant level. 2. The project will not adversely affect agricultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, and public services in that such impacts simply do not apply to the proposed project, given the rural, vegetated environment of the project, the low-intensity recreational uses that are associated with the project, and the minor construction disturbance expected by the project. 3. The project will not adversely affect land use or public services, based on project-specific factors that allow the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. 4. The project will not adversely affect air quality, aesthetics, geology & soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation, or utilities and service systems based on project-specific factors that reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 5. The project will not adversely affect biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, or traffic and transportation because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project has reduced the impacts to a less than significant level. 6. In addition, the project will not: • Create impacts that degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the project’s fundamentally small scale, localized nature. • Create impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, based on project- specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. • Create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, based on project-specific factors that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the District has determined that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. 5 Attachment 2 MITIGATION MEASURES incorporated into the project Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to special-status plants species: Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Focused plant surveys for each species listed in the Biological Assessment shall be conducted in the spring prior to initial ground breaking to determine the species’ presence or absence in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If any special-status plant species are found, areas supporting the species shall be avoided, where feasible. Work shall not start if a special-status plant specimen and its required habitat conditions are found within the impact area while a plan detailing on-site mitigation is developed based on consultation with CDFW. Construction work may start once such plan has been approved by CDFW. Implementation: Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist. Timing: In the spring prior to construction of the project. Monitoring: District staff Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: Mitigation Measure BIO-2. The following avoidance measures for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat will be implemented: 1. Preconstruction Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest surveys prior in the February prior to initial ground breaking and just prior to groundbreaking to determine the presence or absence of nests in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If feasible, disturbance of woodrat nests shall be avoided by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from known nest sites. If during the survey, a woodrat nest is detected, the District will complete one of the following avoidance minimization measures. These measures are listed in order of priority, where the first measure is the preferred measure to be implemented as it provides the least amount of impact to the woodrat. If the first measure cannot be implemented due to extenuating site conditions, the second shall be implemented and so forth down the list. a. Any trail alignment, access road or staging area will be relocated to avoid the woodrat nest by at least 5 feet. Safety and/or silt fencing (for nests downslope) will be erected around all nests within 25 feet of the trail alignment, road or staging area to avoid impacts during construction. b. For all woodrat nests that cannot be avoided by project activities (i.e. will require relocation), the CDFW should be consulted with one of the two following options: i. If the nest appears inactive (e.g. no scat or fresh leaves and twigs), approval will be sought from CDFW to dismantle the nest and replace the lost resource by building an artificial nest. One artificial nest should be built for every one existing inactive nest that is dismantled. ii. If the nest appears active, approval will be sought from CDFW to (1) trap the occupant(s) of the nest, (2) dismantle the nest, (3) construct a new artificial nest with the materials from the dismantled nest, and (4) release the occupant into the new artificial nest. The new nest should be placed no more than 20 feet from its original location and as far from the project footprints as necessary to be protected from construction activities. Nests should only be moved in early morning during the non- breeding season (October through February). If trapping has occurred for three 6 Attachment 2 consecutive nights and no wooodrats have been captured, the nest should be dismantled and a new nest constructed. A CNDDB form shall be filled out and submitted to CDFW for any San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats that are trapped. Once trapped, nests shall be torn down and rebuilt surrounding an inverted wooden planter (or similar structure) having at least one entrance and exit hole that is slightly buried into the ground to anchor. Any nest material encountered shall be placed within the nest structure during rebuilding. A small handful of seeds shall be placed within the relocated structure. Relocated nests are intended to provide a release site and opportunity for the woodrats to relocate to another nest (most woodrats average more than one nest and often do not remain with a relocated nest). Once nests are moved, any trapped woodrats should be released into the reconstructed nest during daylight hours so that they seek refuge in the reconstructed nests. In most instances it is expected that the animal will remain in the reconstructed nest until it has an opportunity to relocate to another nest site at night. Relocated nests are expected to eventually be re-colonized and should be monitored one year post construction using visual surveys to determine if a relocated nest has returned to use. A monitoring report should be submitted to CDFW to document use or non/use of relocated nests. 2. Employee and Contractor Education Program. The District will conduct an employee education program prior to the initiation of project activities. The program will consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in special status species biology and legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees. The program would include the following: a description of woodrat and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of the woodrat and their protection under state law; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to woodrat during project activities. If a woodrat nest is found on the project footprint, it is to be left alone and all operations should stop. Notify Project site lead and District Staff (if the site lead is a contractor) or notify District Natural Resources Program Manager if Project Lead is District Staff. 3. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist, District Natural Resources staff or a trained, on-site monitor will check the site in the morning every day before construction activities begin for the presence of woodrat or other wildlife present within the work area. If a woodrat is found, the monitor shall have the authority to stop construction in the immediate area and immediately notify appropriate District Staff (Natural Resources Program Manager or designated staff). If the monitor is the District’s Natural Resources Staff, or qualified biologist, they will have the authority to notify the CDFW for guidance on procedure. Subsequent recommendations made by the CDFW shall be followed. The monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. 4. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the construction area if these species have been determined to be present. If any woodrat is seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no woodrat is on the ground below the vehicle. Implementation: Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist, project supervisor and project crew members. Timing: The February prior , just prior to construction and during construction as specified 7 Attachment 2 Monitoring: District staff Mitigations Incorporated into project for impacts to California red-legged frog: Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The following avoidance measures for California red-legged frogs will be implemented: 1. Pre-Construction Surveys for Special-Status Amphibians including California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF). Surveys for CRLF and other special-status amphibians shall be conducted before construction begins. In the unlikely event CRLF eggs or tadpoles are found, a 100-foot buffer shall be established around the location until juveniles disperse from the breeding site, as determined by a qualified biologist. If adults are present in the construction area, work shall be stopped until individuals are allowed to disperse on their own volition or the species is relocated by a qualified biologist with permission to handle CRLF. With these measures in place, the impact for CRLF would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Employee and Contractor Education Program. An employee and contractor education program shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel on CRLF identification and procedures should CRLF be observed in the project area. If a CRLF is found on the project footprint, it is to be left alone and all operations should stop. Notify Project site lead and District Staff (if the site lead is a contractor) or notify District Natural Resources Program Manager if Project Lead is District Staff. 3. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist, District Natural Resources staff or a trained, on-site monitor will check the site in the morning every day before construction activities begin for the presence of CRLF or other wildlife present within the work area. If a CRLF is found, the monitor shall have the authority to stop construction in the immediate area and immediately notify appropriate District Staff (Natural Resources Program Manager or designated staff). The monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. 4. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the construction area if these species have been determined to be present. If any CRLF is seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no CRLF is on the ground below the vehicle. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Project Compliance with All State and Federal Permits. The project may potentially affect a number of species that fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW, USFWS, and NMFS. Each of these permits would be reviewed by agency personal experts in conservation of these sensitive species. The federal permits granted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required for the construction of the project. The State of California would also have to issue a streambed alteration and agreement for the project. The project shall attain and comply with all state and federal permits for the project. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species to less than significant level. 8 Attachment 2 Implementation: Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist, project supervisor and project crew members. Timing: Prior to construction and during construction as specified Monitoring: District staff Mitigations Incorporated into project for impacts to Marbeled murrelet: Mitigation Measure BIO-5. If noise generating construction activity takes place during the breeding season (April 1 to September 15), construction activity shall be restricted between 1.5 hours after sunrise to 1.5 hours before sunset to minimize disturbance of potential nesting murrelets using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland nesting and coastal habitat. Implementation: Contractor and District Staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: District Staff Mitigation incorporated into project for raptors and other nesting species: Mitigation Measure BIO-6. A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys within 30 days of the onset of all trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than 8 feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed, an appropriate buffer zone will be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. Removal of trees, snags, or woody shrubs with identified avian nests shall be postponed until all young are fledged and tree Implementation: Qualified Consulting Biologist Timing: Prior to construction Monitoring: District staff Mitigation Incorporated into the project for impacts to pallid bats: Mitigation Measure BIO-7: If mature trees or snags will be removed during the bat breeding season (April 1 through August 31), a qualified bat biologist shall inspect trees and the bridge for potential roost sites. If no potential roost sites are found, no additional mitigation is necessary. Surveys will consist of a daytime pedestrian survey looking for evidence of bat use (e.g., guano) and/or an evening emergency survey to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts, but are not required. If roosts of pallid bats are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the bridge is removed. A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures will be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) will be replaced in consultation with CDFW and may include construction and installation of bat boxes suitable to the bat species and 9 Attachment 2 colony size that was excluded from the original roosting site. Roost replacement will be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. The District has successfully constructed bat boxes elsewhere that have subsequently been occupied by bats. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site, the bridge may be removed. Implementation: Qualified Consulting Biologist Timing: Prior to construction Monitoring: District staff Mitigation incorporated into project for riparian habitat: Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Replant appropriate vegetation at a 2:1 ratio in the project area, as seen in Figure 5. This would include planting within the rock slope protection placed on the channel banks. Planting within the site shall occur in four general planting zones: active channel, lower shaded riparian, upper riparian/upland, and direct seeding (upland). Active channel is the zone nearest to the channel flow and represents the planting that shall be completed around the pools, habitat structures, and riffle edges. This zone is comprised of willows. The second zone, lower shdade riparian, is comprised of riparian shrub like dogwood, coffeberry, and current. The third zone is upper riparian/upland that is largely composed of trees, such as red alders and redwoods, and woody shrubs. The highest elevation zone shall consist of a native erosion control mix. Implementation: Contractor and District Staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: District Staff Mitigation Incorporated into project for impacts to federally protected wetlands: Mitigation Measure BIO-9: To mitigate for impacts on federally protected wetlands, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be implemented. This mitigation measure would reduce impacts to wetland habitats to less than significant by requiring the area to be revegetated with native grasses and other herbaceous perennial wetland species. Implementation: Contractor and District Staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: District Staff Mitigations incorporated into project for impacts to cultural resources: Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Prior to the initiation of construction or ground disturbing activities, District staff or archaeological monitor shall conduct a meeting to train all construction personnel of the potential for exposing subsurface cultural resources and to recognize possible buried cultural resources. Implementation: District staff 10 Attachment 2 Timing: During a pre-construction field meeting with Contractors and Sub-Contractors Monitoring: District Staff shall require contractor and subcontractors to have each employee attend training session and sign training materials indicating attendance at education program. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If there is an unanticipated discovery of archaeological deposits or remains during project implementation, construction crews shall stop all work within 100 feet of the discovery and notify District staff. A qualified archaeologist will assess the discovery, complete an archaeological evaluation and provide recommendations. Implementation: District staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: Construction contractor and District staff With the application of the mitigations above, this impact would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated Mitigation incorporated into project for disturbance of human remains: Mitigation Measure CULT-4. In the event human remains, including skeletal remains, graves, or Native American burial sites or graves, are discovered, such as during the course of any ground disturbing activities (grading, excavating, trenching, digging), construction or maintenance activities, the following procedures shall be followed: • All work shall immediately cease and there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or the area in the vicinity of the discovery. • Notify District staff immediately. • District staff shall immediately notify the San Mateo County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). • Secure the area and no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which shall be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. • If the Coroner determines that the remains are or may be of a Native American, the Coroner shall notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) pursuant to subdivision (c) of the State Health and Safety Code within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. • If the Coroner determines that the remains are not those of a Native American, the Coroner would make recommendations for the treatment and disposition of the remains. 11 Attachment 2 Construction work shall not begin again until the County Coroner has examined the remains, assessed their significance, and offered recommendations for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts. Mitigation measure CULT-3 under section V(b) calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for disturbance of human remains. Implementation: District staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: Construction contractor and District staff Mitigation incorporated into project for wildland fire: HAZ-1. All equipment to be used during construction must have an approved spark arrestor. HAZ-2. Cut grass and reduce fuels around construction sites where vehicles are allowed to park. HAZ-3. Minimize use of mechanical construction equipment during hot, dry, windy weather. HAZ-4. Hired contractors shall be required to: i) Provide water to suppress potential fires caused by the work performed. ii) Remind workers that smoking is prohibited at the work site and on any District land per contract conditions and District Ordinance. iii) Maintain working ABC fire extinguishers on all vehicles in the work area. Contact both Mountain View Dispatch at (650) 968-4411 and the California Department of Forestry, Skylonda, at (650) 851-1860 for emergency response in the event of a fire (these numbers are to report emergencies only). Implementation: Contractors Timing: During construction Monitoring: District Staff RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION California Department of Fish and Wildlife (also a Trustee Agency) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board County of San Mateo U.S. Army Corps of Engineers INITIAL STUDY A copy of the initial study is attached. REVIEW PERIOD The Review Period is October 17th, 2014 through November 17th, 2014. If you have any comments about the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration or Initial Study, have information that should be included, and/or disagree with the findings of our study as set forth in the proposed Mitigated Negative 12 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District INITIAL STUDY Project title: Harkins Bridge Replacement Project Lead agency name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Contact person and phone number: Aaron Hebert, (650) 691-1200 Project location: The project is situated in Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve), a 4,711-acre public preserve located in unincorporated San Mateo County, outside of the City of Half Moon Bay, generally located west of Skyline Boulevard (Highway 35) and inland of Highway 1. The project is located approximately 100 yards east of the public access parking lot at the intersection of Purisima Creek Road and Higgins Canyon Road. The project area encompasses an existing railroad car vehicle bridge, a new bridge location approximately 100’ upstream, and a construction staging area on the southern side of the construction area. Project APN: 067-320-220 Project sponsor's name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 General plan designation: Public Recreation Zoning: Timberland Preserve-Coastal Zone District (TPZ-CZ) Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses The Harkin Bridge Replacement Project site is located approximately 100 yards east of the intersection of Higgins Canyon Road and Purisima Creek Road, on the Whittemore Gulch Trail, in the Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve. Figure 1, Area Map, shows the regional context of the project site. Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve is an 4,711-acre preserve that includes a 24-mile trail system for hikers, bikers, and equestrians. Purisima Creek, a large perennial stream, flows from the top of the Preserve at Skyline Blvd (Highway 35) down to the coastal terraces south of Half Moon Bay. The project site is located at the very western extent of the Preserve, adjacent to the only public parking from the coastside of the Preserve. Project Goals and Objectives The Project involves the removal and replacement of a deteriorated railroad car bridge crossing over Purisima Creek, which would entail demolition of an existing access road to the old bridge location, site restoration of the area of the old bridge location; construction of a temporary 14 Attachment 2 culvert crossing with associated water diversion plan; installation of a new bridge, construction of a new access roadway and trail to the proposed bridge, and temporary fencing along Purisima Creek Trail to exclude the public from construction activities. The project goals and objectives are as follows: • Remove the existing deteriorated bridge over Purisima Creek and restore the bridge approaches and bridge area to reduce soil erosion. • Construct a new bridge and associated new access roadway approximately 100 feet upstream of the existing bridge that will improve public safety for the District with safe vehicular access for patrol, fire and other emergency vehicles. Project Characteristics Project implementation would involve removing the existing 60-foot long, steel bridge and replacing it with a 60-foot-long, prefabricated steel bridge upstream of the current location. The project is shown in Figures 2 to 6. The existing bridge is deteriorating and can no longer safely carry significant vehicle loads. The current bridge serves as a crossing for patrol, fire, and other emergency vehicles. These vehicles can be quite heavy, so the bridge has to be able to carry those loads safely. The new bridge will entail the construction of structural concrete abutments (drilled piers), and maintaining adequate turning radius and grades on the new approaches to the bridge. Approximately 15 feet of the Whitmore Gulch Trail will be realigned to approach the proposed bridge from the north and approximately 60 feet of the Purisima Creek Trail will be realigned to approach the proposed bridge from the south. The bridge replacement project involves working in an approximately 180-foot reach of Purisima Creek that is approximately 20 to 50 feet wide. The project construction footprint for the old and new bridge location is approximately 3,500 square feet (0.08 acres). Approximately 0.01 acres of riparian vegetation removal will be required around the proposed bridge approaches primarily on the southern end and around the northern end, as seen as Figure 7 and 9. Two alder trees (12” and 20” dbh) are proposed for removal adjacent to the proposed northern bridge approach, as seen in Figure 3 and 8. In this river reach the river banks are 8 to 10 feet high; however the channel bottom is significantly wider downstream of the proposed new bridge. The slope along the reach is approximately 2.2%. The large downed redwood tree immediately downstream of existing bridge restricts high storm flows. This restriction causes storm flows to back up and flood the adjacent approach to the existing bridge. The existing bridge will be replaced with a new bridge approximately 100 feet upstream of the existing bridge. The southern concrete abutment and wingwall will be constructed entirely outside the stream channel and above the 100-year flood event elevation. The northern abutment and wing wall are to be built just below the break in slope of the stream channel, but above the elevation of an 100-year flood event, as seen in Figure 4. Grading for this project is limited to both bridge approaches and minor recontouring for slope stabilization and restoration purposes around the existing bridge. The quantities of excavation and fill are detailed below, under Project 15 Attachment 2 Implementation, f. New Construction, and seen in Figures 3 and 4. Almost all of the grading will occur within soils that were previously disturbed by the construction of the log landing built in the approximately in the 1850s. In addition to the removal and replacement of the bridge, the design includes the restoration of the old bridge location with native vegetation, and new bio-technically stabilized slopes. More detailed information regarding the various phases of the proposed project is provided below. Project Implementation e. Construction Timeline. Construction activities would occur over a 16 to 24 week period, beginning and ending between April 1 to December 31st. Construction hours would be limited to one and half hours after sunrise to one and a half hours before sunset on weekdays and weekends during marbeled murrelet nesting season (April 1st to September 15th), after which construction would be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm during weekdays and 9:00 am to 5:00pm on Saturday, as described in mitigation measure BIO-5. f. Construction Access. The site would be accessed from Purisima Canyon Road, directly off Highway 1. Construction vehicles would utilize Purisima Creek Road in order to access the site and haul materials from the site. A temporary culvert crossing and road would be constructed at the existing bridge crossing to allow vehicular access to the other side of Purisima Creek for construction activities. g. Construction Equipment. The project would require the use of heavy equipment, such as cranes, excavators, loaders, backhoes, water trucks, dump trucks and fuel tanks. h. Grading and Erosion Control. Grading and other earth-disturbing activities proposed project would be limited to the dry season (generally between April 15 and October 15). Construction will be supervised by experienced District staff and engineering consultants and would incorporate erosion control techniques from the District’s Details and Specifications Guidelines. In addition, Best Management Practices (BMPs) approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Regional Water Quality Control Board and in use by the District for proper design and use of silt fencing, would be implemented during project construction to avoid impacts such as erosion at the project site. Channel erosion potential would change over time as the planted vegetation matures. Typically, the erosion potential of the channel and banks decreases as the project ages, and mature, stable vegetation is established. Approaches that integrate vegetation and biodegradable products such as fiber blankets, bio-blocks, and coir products will be used. The biodegradable products are used to provide temporary erosion protection and allow for the vegetation to mature and provide the primary erosion control within 3 to 5 years, giving re-vegetation plantings time to establish. The channel banks along the riffles and grade control structures will be planted with willow and alder stakes to ensure that vegetation cover becomes part of the overall channel structure. Additional riparian planting will be completed on the floodplain and channel banks to ensure long term stability of the channel. 16 Attachment 2 e. Demolition. As part of the proposed project, the existing bridge and access road (approximately 0.03 acres) would be demolished and the rubble would be hauled off site to an appropriate refuse and recycling facility. Demolition of the affected portion of the road would generate approximately 200 cubic yards of waste. The existing bridge is a 60-foot long, 12-foot wide old railroad car steel bridge that would be demolished and hauled offsite. Tarps would be placed underneath the bridge during demolition to prevent debris from entering the creek. Dirt from the bridge fill would be temporarily stored on an adjacent staging area, and suitable soil would later be used as backfill fill for the restoration of the old bridge site. Generally, significant trees on the site are being avoided; however the project will entail the removal of two alder trees. f. Staging. Once the bridge, fill, and road are removed from the site, a temporary dirt access road to the channel bed will be constructed to allow access to the other side of the creek. Two (2) 18 inch pipes will be installed across the active creek and a temporary crossing will be constructed to allow for construction traffic to the north abutment. Clean gravel and soil fill will be used to construct the temporary crossing. A staging area will be established on the southern side of the construction area where materials and equipment will be stored. The temporary dirt access road and staging area are shown in Figure 3. g. Project Site Water Diversion and Fish Exclusion Plan. A creek flow bypass will be required during the majority of construction activities. The proposed flow bypass system will collect all of the creek flow and provide a temporary crossing via two 18” culverts for construction equipment at the original bridge location. Only resident trout use Purisma Creek. There are no steelheads present. A qualified fish biologist will install a fish exclusion net prior to in-channel work at the upper boundary of the in-stream construction area. Any fish below the exclusion with be flushed downstream and a net will be installed at the southern boundary of the construction area. Once the temporary stream crossing is constructed, the fish exclusion netting will be removed. The same fish exclusion process will repeated during the temporary crossing removal. A series of silt fence and water barriers will be installed at the base of the banks of each new bridge abutment. These fences will direct the flowing water away from the work away so a dry working environment can be preserved. The anticipated length of channel flow control is approximately 180 linear feet. The Contractor will develop a diversion plan and ensure that all materials and equipment will be available for the water diversion prior to the commencement of work. The water diversion system should include the following components: • Confinement Structure • Bypass Piping/Pipeline • Point of Discharge Protection (as needed) Upon completion of the construction all diversion and temporary crossing material will be removed from the streambed. e. Temporary Trail Access . The Contractor will fence off the southern side of the construction area to preserve a 10 feet wide road and trail width for visitors using Purisima Creek trail. Visitors using the Whittemore Gulch and Harkins Ridge trail that desire to access the parking lot or Purisima Creek trail will have to use the temporary culvert crossing. A 17 Attachment 2 brief period between the demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the temporary culvert crossing will close access over Purisima Creek. Appropriate signs would be posted at trailheads and along the temporary trail to provide warning to the public of the temporary closure, construction vehicles and information on the project status and advise cyclists to walk their bikes. f. New Bridge Construction. Once removal of the bridge and temporary road crossing is complete, construction on the bridge will begin. Vertical and denuded banks downstream of the bridge will be stabilized and replanted using locally harvested willow and alder stakes in combination with biodegradable erosion control products. The new bridge will be built upon two new lateral foundations from either side of the creek at the top of bank. The bridge structure itself will be a prefabricated metal bridge 60 feet long and 15 feet wide. The foundations will be installed first, and then the bridge will be assembled on-site and dropped into place with a crane. New approach roadway, approximately 0.03 acres, will be graded and compacted. Backfill will be placed and compacted; road base and will then be installed in the last 18 inches of depth. All disturbed areas will be seeded and/or revegetated to prevent soil erosion. Disturbed bank slopes will be seeded and covered with erosion control blankets. Construction Material Description= Unit, Quantity 1. Remove Bridge = 200 Cubic Yards (CY) 2. Structural Excavation= 53 CY 3. Structural Backfill = 185 CY 4. Class 2 Aggregate Base= 20 CY 5. Structural Concrete= 40 CY 6. Reconstructed channel (soil/rock) = 42 CY Construction Sequence. The following sequence of construction task will take place. 1. Project site mobilization 2. Biologic surveys, education, monitoring 3. Signage, grading and establishment of temporary access ways 4. Construction of dewatering/diversion system 5. Project site water diversion and biological monitoring and fish relocation 6. Bridge, roadway demolition, and fill excavation 7. Temporary access road and crossing installation 8. Bridge foundation construction 9. Place backfill and headwalls 10. Construct roadway 11. Assemble and install bridge 13. Remove detour; decommission temporary access road; complete erosion control 14. Final site planting and punchlist 18 Attachment 2 15. Site cleanup and demobilization SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS Upon District Board certification of this negative declaration, the following actions will occur: 1. Application for San Mateo County Coastal Development Permit 2. Application for Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 3. Application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 4. Application for California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Permits. 5. Release of bid package, bid opening, Board of Directors authorization for award of bid 6. Construction of the project Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The project is located within and Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, a 4,711-acre preserve owned and managed by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, containing more than 24 miles of predominantly multiple-use (hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian use) trails. The Preserve is located in unincorporated San Mateo County, approximately 5.3 miles outside of the City of Half Moon Bay, and west of Skyline Boulevard (Highway 35). The project site is near the western boundary of Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Rural residential homes, agricultural operations, and Burleigh Murray Ranch State Park lie to the west of the Preserve and project site. East of the project site is the main portion of the Preserve, which includes recreational uses by the public and natural resource management by the District. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Permit • Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board • San Mateo County Coastal Development Permit Document availability: All documents referenced in the Initial Study are available for review from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District administrative office at the address listed above. It will also be available at the District’s website: http://www.openspace.org/news/public_notices.asp 19 Attachment 2 Figure 1: Regional Location Map 20 Attachment 2 Figure 2: Existing Conditions 21 Attachment 2 Figure 3: Proposed Bridge 22 Attachment 2 Figure 4: Proposed Bridge Profile 23 Attachment 2 Figure 5: Proposed Restoration Area Where Existing Bridge Removed 24 Attachment 2 Figure 6: Photo of Existing Bridge Looking Upstream 25 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 27 Attachment 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS Issues: I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: I(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     Explanation: (Sources: 1, 2, and 6). The project is located in the 4,711-acre Purisima Creek Redwood Open Space Preserve (Preserve) approximately 430 feet above mean sea level at the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and about 5.3 miles southeast of Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. Higgins Canyon Road and Purisima Creek Road are designated as a scenic corridor by San Mateo County. The corridor is defined as the visual boundary of the landscape. The project is within San Mateo County’s map of visual corridors depicting the extent of the corridor around the scenic roads. Development within the corridor is required to be set back 100’ from the center line of the roadway, greater when possible and as little as 50’ when vegetation can shield the structure from public view. The project is located 100 yards from the centerline of Higgins-Purisima Road. The project is not visible from Higgins Canyon Road and Purisima Creek Road primarily due to vegetation, existing development (a public parking lot), and topography. Redwood forest surrounds the project site and the visual corridor as the public approaches the site. The tall trees limit visibility to the local area; no vistas are present within the visual corridor of the project or the scenic roads as the public approaches the site. As the public drives away from the Preserve parking lot and the creek itself, grasslands and chaparral provide open views. These vistas are located outside the visual boundary the project site. This project will therefore have a less than significant impact on views within or into the Preserve. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?     Explanation: (Sources:1, 2, and 8). Potential scenic impacts of the proposed project are limited to the removal of riparian vegetation around the southern approach of the proposed bridge and two alder trees, 12” and 20” dbh, removed around the northern abutment of the proposed bridge, which are not considered a ‘heritage tree’ in San Mateo County. Construction vehicles and equipment will access the project site by way of the scenic corridor described 17 Attachment 2 in I.A. These temporary activities will not a have a significant impact on the scenic corridor. As discussed in I(a), the project is within a scenic corridor and may therefore contain scenic resources. The project, however, is obscured from the scenic roads primarily due to vegetation, existing development (a public parking lot), and topography. The demolished road approach to the existing railcar bridge will be replanted in a 2:1 ratio with riparian vegetation and alders, as described in IV(e) and mitigation measure BIO-8. Figure 7. Photo of Riparian Vegetation at the Southern Approach of the Proposed Bridge 18 Attachment 2 Figure 8: Photo from Higgins-Purisima Centerline Looking Towards Project Site Figure 9. Photo of Trees at the North Approach of the Proposed Bridge (Alders visible right) 19 Attachment 2 Figure 10: Photo of Existing Staging Area and Vault Toilet Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?     Explanation: (Sources: 3). The project occurs in areas that are largely disturbed by previous use, with the exception of the southern side of the replacement bridge. Riparian vegetation, redwood forests, the railcar bridge, the access gate, vault toilet, preserve signage, and the adjacent trails define the visual character of the site. The railcar bridge sits at a low elevation with respect to the creek and is adjacent to the floodplain of the creek. The railcar site is relatively open in the winter months and obscured by annual spring vegetation until late summer. The replacement bridge will be partially obscured by mature riparian and redwood trees. The existing railcar bridge has 40” tall wooden railings, wooden decking, and a steel substructure. The replacement bridge will have a steel substructure, steel truss, and the style of railings and decking will be determined. The new railings and the truss structure will have a larger vertical profile, while the substructure will be thinner in profile compared to the railcar bridge. The modernization of the bridge will not degrade the existing visual character of the site. Replanting the railcar site with native vegetation will restore a more natural visual character (see mitigation BIO-8). The replacement bridge is of a similar size and scale to the existing railcar bridge and will be less visible. It is therefore expected that the project will have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site. 20 Attachment 2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     Explanation: (Sources: 5). The project does not include exterior lighting fixtures or reflective surfaces that might cause glare during the day. District Ordinance 93-1, Section 805.2 prohibits the use of the Preserve by the public between one-half hour after sunset and sunrise. The project will therefore not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Aesthetics Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County General Plan, 1986. http://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/GP_Scenic_Corridor.pdf 2. Harkins Bridge Relocation Study, Questa Engineering, July 2014. 3. Sawmills in the Redwoods: Logging on the San Francisco Peninsula from 1849-1967, Frank Stanger, 1967. 4. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting on April 23rd, 2014. 5. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No. 93-1, July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No. 04-01, August 25, 2004. 6. San Mateo County Local Coastal Program Policies, June 2013, Component 8.28-8.34 “Scenic Roads and Corridors”. 7. San Mateo County. Zoning Regulations. Chapter 37: Timberland Preserve Zone-Coastal Zone (TPZ-CZ) District, Section 6950 December 2012. https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/2012_ZoneRegs%5BFINAL%5D.pdf 8. San Mateo County. San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Section 12000. The Significant Tree Ordinance of San Mateo County. May 15, 1990. 9. San Mateo County. Zoning Maps.Access August 2014. http://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/smc_zoning.pdf 21 Attachment 2 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?     II(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? IIc) 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 section4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? IId) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     II(e) 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?     Explanations for a, b, c, d, and e: (Sources: 1, 2, 3). The subject parcel (067-320-220) that would be affected by the project are part of a larger collection of land holdings totaling 4,711 acres that together create the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. This Preserve is managed for resource protection and ecologically sensitive public recreational use, in keeping with the District’s mission. No change in land management or use of the Preserve is proposed as part of this project. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps for the project vicinity indicate that no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance would be disturbed by the project. The closest farmlands are grazing areas west and north of the         25 Attachment 2 project site, outside of the Preserve boundaries. This project will have no impact on nearby grazing lands. The property is not under Williamson Act contracts. The project area is zoned Timberland Preserve Zone-Coastal Zone (TPZ-CZ). Allowable uses for TPZ-CZ Districts in San Mateo County include outdoor public recreation and development to support recreation. The project does not conflict with the permitted land uses per the San Mateo Zoning Ordinance and will not involve or create changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland or Timberland. Agricultural Resources Section Sources: 1. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps for San Mateo County. 2012. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp. 2. San Mateo County. Zoning Regulations. Chapter 34: Timberland Preserve Zone. July 1999. http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/9441580Zregs-wp.pdf 3. San Mateo County Zoning Maps http://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/smc_zoning.pdf 26 Attachment 2 III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?     Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?     Explanation: (Source: 1 through 7). Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants have been established by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The EPA sets national standards for six criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. The EPA also oversees state air quality programs to meet these standards. The ARB makes state area designations for ten criteria pollutants: ozone, suspended particulate matter (PM10), fine suspended particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility reducing particles. These standards represent levels of air quality considered to be safe with an adequate margin of safety to protect public health and safety. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors,” those people who are most susceptible to further respiratory stress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by disease or illness, and people who are engaged in strenuous work or exercise. At a local and regional level, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates and monitors levels of air pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Basin (Bay Area) and the Bay Area’s attainment status. Project The project is located in a 4,711-acre preserve approximately 435 feet above mean sea level, and about 5.3 miles east of Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. The prevailing winds are from the west and average from 5 to 25 mph. Due to the anticipated short construction period of four months, the proposed control measures to be implemented, the projected low emissions generated by the bridge replacement, and the low amount of dust generated by the new bridge, the project’s construction and operations emissions are not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or produce levels of emissions that violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 26 Attachment 2 criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Construction The nature of particulates is that larger, coarser material settles out quickly and closer to the emission source whereas smaller particulates are in suspension for a longer period of time and are able to travel further. Due to the dense vegetative buffer and the discrete, small-scale area of the approximately 0.08 acre bridge construction zone, any potential dust emissions created by the project’s construction activities would tend to remain more localized and limited to the short-term, four to five month construction period for each project component. Construction-related earthmoving activities that will occur primarily during the summer and fall, when increased use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces begin to occur, cool temperatures, low wind speeds, low inversion layers, and high humidity favor the buildup of PM levels. The control measures listed below from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines will be implemented during construction to minimize PM emissions. Mobile source control measures related to ozone precursor emissions will include limiting idling time for diesel powered construction equipment and limiting hours of operation for construction equipment. Measures Based on Basic and Enhanced Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 from BAAQMD 1999 CEQA Guidelines: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily where needed, based on site and ambient conditions, to reduce dust emissions. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites where needed, based on site and ambient conditions, to reduce dust emissions. • Sweep daily all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites if visible soil material is accumulating on surfaces. • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Enclose, cover, water daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. Modeling Estimates for the bridge construction and operational emissions (pounds per day) were prepared using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)’s Roadway Construction Emissions Model, Version 5.2, prepared by Jones & Stokes under the financial support and direction of SMAQMD. The estimated emissions for grading are below BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, and PM10. Under the model, construction emissions from for ROG, NOx, and PM10 were each found to be in the range of 10 to 30 pounds per day, well below 54, 54, and 82 pounds per day respectively, BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance for these pollutants. Levels of CO emissions were 27 Attachment 2 estimated to be below BAAQMD’s threshold of significance, and generation of SO 2 and lead emissions is not anticipated. Operations The existing bridge is currently suitable for public recreation, as visitors are not permitted to drive into the Preserve (see District Ordinance 96-1) and will continue serving the existing uses of the visitors at the project site, which are primarily hikers, bikers, and equestrians. Ranger patrol and resource management vehicles also use the Preserve. Replacement of the existing bridge with a new bridge will have no affect on visitor use of the Preserve. The Preserve is currently accessed by vehicle for District patrol, natural resource management, and emergency response for medical, fire, and law enforcement activities. The proposed bridge will open areas of the preserve that were previously accessed by District vehicles. Access to these areas will not, however, increase the frequency or duration of District patrol (the most common vehicle trip), but rather provide greater circulation for Patrol and points of contract for patrol staff. Vehicles will be less likely to turn around part way through the Preserve and doubleback, but will instead have the option of circulating through the Preserve. Due to the minimal footprint of the new bridge, it is not anticipated to conflict with applicable air quality plans, regulations, or programs. In addition, the project’s operations are not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     Explanation: (Sources: 3, 5, 8). According to the BAAQMD, sensitive receptor groups include people who are most susceptible to further respiratory stress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by disease or illness, and people who are engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Such receptor groups are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of air pollutants. The ARB has indicated that a correlation has been found between the proximity of sensitive land uses (residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, or medical facilities) to specific air pollution sources (freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). Due to the projected short construction period of four to five months and the limited vehicle trips generated by the project, it is expected that the project will not expose sensitive receptors or sensitive land uses to substantial pollutant concentrations. Individuals who are visiting the Preserve for recreation and exercise may be considered at a higher risk of suffering adverse health effects from the inhalation of minute dust particles classified as particulate matter, which are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest part of the lungs. The project area will include a 10’ wide bypass trail for Preserve users along the southern edge of the project area. The majority of users access the Preserve during the late afternoon on weekdays and all day on weekends and will therefore largely avoid the localized effects of construction activities. The adjacent parking lot has six parking spaces and another six roadside parking pullouts are often utilized by the 28 Attachment 2 public during busy periods. For this reason, carpooling to the site is frequent. Assuming all spots are occupied and all cars contain two people, a likely maximum of twenty-four users may walk around the construction site twice in a given outing. The construction requires a minor amount of grading. Because the new bridge location makes use of existing roads and minimizes the amount of vegetation disturbance, localized levels of dust are anticipated to be minimal. A 60’ stretch of ‘road’ needs to be constructed between Purisima Creek Trail and the proposed southern bridge abutment and 10’of road from the north abutment to the adjacent road. 50’ of the new road will be constructed over previously disturbed soils. The revegetation and replanting of the existing bridge location will exceed the area disturbed by the new construction footprint. Dust emissions from construction activities can also affect properties adjacent to project sites. The nature of particulates is that larger, coarser material settles out quickly and closer to the emission source whereas smaller particulates are in suspension for a longer period of time and are able to travel further. However, due to the vegetative buffer surrounding the construction zones, any potential dust emissions created by the project’s construction activities would tend to remain more localized and limited to the short-term, four to five month construction period. The closest building to the project site is ~700 feet to the west at 3600 Higgins Canyon Road and is at a lower elevation than the project site, is well screened by vegetation on the project site and on their property. Purisima Creek takes a sharp turn from its east-west flow in the project area to a southern direction between the project site and the closest building. The variations in topography and landform that guide the creek also obscure the closest building to the project site. The second closet building is located over 1/4 mile away from the project and with the dense, vegetated buffer and varied topography should not be significantly impacted by the construction activities. To address emissions from construction activities, control measures as listed above under III(a-c) from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines will be implemented during construction to minimize PM emissions the construction. Examples of control measures include watering active construction areas, limiting traffic speeds on unpaved roads, and limiting grading and excavating activity during periods of high wind gusts. In addition, mobile source control measures related to ozone precursor emissions will include limiting idling time for diesel powered construction equipment and limiting hours of operation for construction equipment. Thus, the project is not expected to have a significant construction impact on the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project’s operational impact to sensitive receptors is expected to be insignificant as well due to the projected low emissions generated by the replacement bridge and the low amount of dust generated by the roads as they approach the new bridge location. The project is not expected to have a significant operational impact on the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?     Explanation: The bridge primarily provides for low-intensity, non-motorized recreational uses of the Preserve by the public. These uses do not emit objectionable odors, and would not contribute to a 29 Attachment 2 significant impact. In addition, as described above in III(a-c), due to the small-scale nature of the project area and projected low emissions generated, the bridge itself is also not expected to create any objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, construction activities for demolishing the existing bridge and constructing a new bridge will be localized and limited to a short-term, four month construction period. As described in III(d), public access to the construction site largely occurs outside of the weekday construction hours. No picnic tables or other recreational facilities that encourage prolonged visitation in the project area exist. Air Quality Section Sources: 1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No. 93-1, July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No. 04-01, August 25, 2004 2. U.S. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Posted on http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Last updated March 28, 2008. 3. California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resource Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005 4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. May 2012 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Final adopted January 4, 2006. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule. November 9, 2005. 7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status. http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm. Accessed September, 2014. 30 Attachment 2 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV(a) 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 Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?     Explanation: (Sources: 1 through 17). A number of special-status species surveys and resource inventory projects have been completed within the Preserve. In 2011, Coast Range Biological conducted a thorough Biological Assessment of the project site in order to identify special status species and other sensitive biological resources such as riparian resources and wetlands, and to identify mitigation measures to avoid potential impacts, if warranted. District staff revisited the project site in 2013 and 2014 to evaluate any changes. There were no changes observed from the 2011 Biological Assessment. The project is located in the following habitats: riparian woodland, coastal redwood, red alder forest, and Developed/Ruderal. The project will not have a significant impact on special status species through significant habitat removal, landscape alteration, or food chain modification. Potential adverse impacts to sensitive species, as well as sensitive habitats, would be generally limited to temporary construction impacts. All potential adverse impacts can be either avoided or reduced to insignificant levels through incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in this section. 1. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES A search of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) special status plant species lists indicated no known special status plant occurrences in the project area. The nearest recorded special status plant species are: Choris' popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) two miles north of the project site; Santa Cruz Manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii) 1.8 miles northeast; and Kings Mountain Manzanita 1.8 northeast. No individuals of Choris' popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) or Kings Mountain Manzanita (Arctostaphylos regis-montana) shrubs were observed at the site. Twenty-four (24) special-status plant species have the potential to occur in the project area. None were found at the project site. The presence of Dudley’s lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi) could not be determined due to the timing of the surveys and has a moderate potential to occur in the project area. 32 Attachment 2 Impact BIO-1: Ground disturbance associated with the project could potentially result in adverse impacts to the above special-status species, if they occur within the project area. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to special-status plants species: Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Focused plant surveys for each species listed in the Biological Assessment shall be conducted in the spring prior to initial ground breaking to determine the species’ presence or absence in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If any special-status plant species are found, areas supporting the species shall be avoided, where feasible. Work shall not start if a special-status plant specimen and its required habitat conditions are found within the impact area while a plan detailing on-site mitigation is developed based on consultation with CDFW. Construction work may start once such plan has been approved by CDFW. Implementation: Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist. Timing: In the spring prior to construction of the project. Monitoring: District staff 2. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES Special status animal species that have the potential to occur within the project area include California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri), marbeled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western red bat (Lasiurus borealis), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). Other sensitive animal species that could occur within the project area include a variety of migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Central California Coast Steelhead Anadramous steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) does not occur in the project area; a 30 foot waterfall at the river mouth is a complete barrier to passage. The nearest occurrence is approximately 1.8 miles north in Mills Creek. Purisima Creek is home to resident rainbow trout, however. Impacts to resident trout include potential increases in sediment, turbidity, and water temperatures through a change in canopy cover. The two alder trees proposed for removal cover a small area with their canopies and rise above the understory but below the overstory and therefore will create a less than significant impact to the stream temperatures. Replanting of the disturbed areas, as described in BIO -9, will restore canopy cover along with adjacent trees releasing into the remove mid-canopy area. Prior to any in-stream construction activities, the Contractor under the supervision of a qualified expert will install a fish exclusion net at the upper extent of the project area, flush any resident trout 33 Attachment 2 downstream, and install an exclusion net on the downstream end of the project area. No pools are present in the stream reach; the site is unlikely to contain any resident trout. The netting will removed after the temporary crossing construction, installed during the temporary crossing removal, and removed upon completion. Best practices to address the potential impacts related to sediment and turbidity are incorporated into the project design, will follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and will be reduced through the guidelines described in IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Less than significant impact. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a State species of concern. Woodrats are small mammals that build nests made of sticks typically at the base of trees and shrubs. The species prefers forested habitat with a moderate canopy and brushy understory, particularly on the upper banks of riparian forests. The dusky-footed woodrat is known to feed on a variety of woody plants, fungi, flowers and seeds. Suitable habitat exists in the project site. Five woodrat nest were discovered in 2011, but have not been resurveyed since. The surveys need to be repeated immediately prior to construction to ensure validity after the passage of time. Impact BIO-2: Habitat for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats in the project area could be disturbed by project activities or by vehicle or human access from temporary equipment and material staging, that may potentially result in the removal and loss of woodrat nests. The riparian vegetation along the southern approach of the proposed bridge will be removed during the construction and is suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the woodrat. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: Mitigation Measure BIO-2. The following avoidance measures for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat will be implemented: 1. Preconstruction Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest surveys prior in the February prior to initial ground breaking and just prior to groundbreaking to determine the presence or absence of nests in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If feasible, disturbance of woodrat nests shall be avoided by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from known nest sites. If during the survey, a woodrat nest is detected, the District will complete one of the following avoidance minimization measures. These measures are listed in order of priority, where the first measure is the preferred measure to be implemented as it provides the least amount of impact to the woodrat. If the first measure cannot be implemented due to extenuating site conditions, the second shall be implemented and so forth down the list. a. Any trail alignment, access road or staging area will be relocated to avoid the woodrat nest by at least 5 feet. Safety and/or silt fencing (for nests downslope) will be erected around all nests within 25 feet of the trail alignment, road or staging area to avoid impacts during 34 Attachment 2 construction. b. For all woodrat nests that cannot be avoided by project activities (i.e. will require relocation), the CDFW should be consulted with one of the two following options: i. If the nest appears inactive (e.g. no scat or fresh leaves and twigs), approval will be sought from CDFW to dismantle the nest and replace the lost resource by building an artificial nest. One artificial nest should be built for every one existing inactive nest that is dismantled. ii. If the nest appears active, approval will be sought from CDFW to (1) trap the occupant(s) of the nest, (2) dismantle the nest, (3) construct a new artificial nest with the materials from the dismantled nest, and (4) release the occupant into the new artificial nest. The new nest should be placed no more than 20 feet from its original location and as far from the project footprints as necessary to be protected from construction activities.. Nests should only be moved in early morning during the non- breeding season (October through February). If trapping has occurred for three consecutive nights and no wooodrats have been captured, the nest should be dismantled and a new nest constructed. A CNDDB form shall be filled out and submitted to CDFW for any San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats that are trapped. Once trapped, nests shall be torn down and rebuilt surrounding an inverted wooden planter (or similar structure) having at least one entrance and exit hole that is slightly buried into the ground to anchor. Any nest material encountered shall be placed within the nest structure during rebuilding. A small handful of seeds shall be placed within the relocated structure. Relocated nests are intended to provide a release site and opportunity for the woodrats to relocate to another nest (most woodrats average more than one nest and often do not remain with a relocated nest). Once nests are moved, any trapped woodrats should be released into the reconstructed nest during daylight hours so that they seek refuge in the reconstructed nests. In most instances it is expected that the animal will remain in the reconstructed nest until it has an opportunity to relocate to another nest site at night. Relocated nests are expected to eventually be re-colonized and should be monitored one year post construction using visual surveys to determine if a relocated nest has returned to use. A monitoring report should be submitted to CDFW to document use or non/use of relocated nests. 2. Employee and Contractor Education Program. The District will conduct an employee education program prior to the initiation of project activities. The program will consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in special status species biology and legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees. The program would include the following: a description of woodrat and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of the woodrat and their protection under state law; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to woodrat during project activities. If a woodrat nest is found on the project footprint, it is to be left alone and all operations should stop. Notify Project site lead and District Staff (if the site lead is a contractor) or notify District Natural Resources Program Manager if Project Lead is District Staff. 3. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist, District Natural Resources staff or a trained, on-site monitor will check the site in the morning every day before construction activities begin for the presence of woodrat or other wildlife present within 35 Attachment 2 the work area. If a woodrat is found, the monitor shall have the authority to stop construction in the immediate area and immediately notify appropriate District Staff (Natural Resources Manager or designated staff). If the monitor is the District’s Natural Resources Staff, or qualified biologist, they will have the authority to notify the CDFW for guidance on procedure. Subsequent recommendations made by the CDFW shall be followed. The monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. 4. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the construction area if these species have been determined to be present. If any woodrat is seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no woodrat is on the ground below the vehicle. Implementation: Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist, project supervisor and project crew members. Timing: The February prior, immediately prior to construction and during construction as specified Monitoring: District staff California red-legged frog California red-legged frog (CRLF) is a federally listed threatened species and California species of special concern that is known to occur in western San Mateo County. CRLFs are generally found along marshes, streams, ponds, and other permanent sources of water where dense scrubby vegetation such as willows, cattails, and bulrushes dominate, and water quality is good. Breeding sites occur along watercourses with pools that remain long enough for breeding (usually between late November and April depending on winter rains) and the development of larvae. Appropriate refugia for CRLF include small mammal burrows, downed logs or vegetation, or dense forest litter. There are three documented occurrence of California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii, CRLF) within three miles of the project area: 1.4-miles southwest of the project site, 1.5-miles south southwest, and 2.4-miles southeast, along Tunitas Creek Road in the Purisima Creek watershed (as seen in Figure 9). There are no other documented CRLF occurrences within the watershed, but there are numerous other documented CRLF occurrences within 5-miles of the project area. No suitable breeding habitat is present in the project area for CRLF, but Purisima Creek and associated Riparian Woodland provides suitable summer habitat for foraging and sheltering. At least one potential breeding pond is located 0.7 miles to the southwest. Though unlikely to be present at the project site, construction activities such as vegetation removal, grading, and dewatering could result in adverse impacts on this species. Potential indirect impacts to CRLF, if present in this area, could include temporary increase in turbidity and downstream sedimentation during construction activities. However, the project includes water quality protection measures that reduce the potential for such impacts to a less than significant level. During the breeding season, upland migration from breeding habitat, though none is located near the project, through the construction area could result in adverse impacts to CRLF. Erosion control and water quality considerations are discussed further in Sections IX. Therefore, the project would avoid 36 Attachment 2 direct and indirect impacts to California red-legged frogs. Impacts BIO-3 and BIO-4: CRLF utilize streams, riparian vegetation, and upland areas (during the winter). Given their potential presence in the project area, construction equipment could disturb or harm CRLF. Mitigation Incorporated into project for impacts to California red-legged frog: Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The following avoidance measures for California red-legged frogs will be implemented: 1. Pre-Construction Surveys for Special-Status Amphibians including California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF). Surveys for CRLF and other special-status amphibians shall be conducted before construction begins. In the unlikely event CRLF eggs or tadpoles are found, a 100-foot buffer shall be established around the location until juveniles disperse from the breeding site, as determined by a qualified biologist. If adults are present in the construction area, work shall be stopped until individuals are allowed to disperse on their own volition or the species is relocated by a qualified biologist with permission to handle CRLF. With these measures in place, the impact for CRLF would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Employee and Contractor Education Program. An employee and contractor education program shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel on CRLF identification and procedures should CRLF be observed in the project area. If a CRLF is found on the project footprint, it is to be left alone and all operations should stop. Notify Project site lead and District Staff (if the site lead is a contractor) or notify District Natural Resources Manager if Project Lead is District Staff. 3. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist, District Natural Resources staff or a trained, on-site monitor will check the site in the morning every day before construction activities begin for the presence of CRLF or other wildlife present within the work area. If a CRLF is found, the monitor shall have the authority to stop construction in the immediate area and immediately notify appropriate District Staff (Natural Resources Manager or designated staff). The monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. 4. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the construction area if these species have been determined to be present. If any CRLF is seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no CRLF is on the ground below the vehicle. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Project Compliance with All State and Federal Permits. The project may potentially affect a number of species that fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW, USFWS, and NMFS. Each of these permits would be reviewed by agency personal experts in conservation of these sensitive species. The federal permits granted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required for the construction of the project. The State of California would also have to issue a 37 Attachment 2 streambed alteration and agreement for the project. The project shall attain and comply with all state and federal permits for the project. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species to less than significant level. Implementation: Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist, project supervisor and project crew members. Timing: Prior to construction and during construction as specified Monitoring: District staff Figure 9 Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet, a federally listed threatened species, is dependent on old growth coniferous forests for nesting and near-shore marine waters for foraging. In the Santa Cruz Mountains, and redwood forests in general, most murrelet nests occur in large branches, or structures associated with 38 Attachment 2 large branches of old growth trees. USFWS describes individual marbled murrelet nest trees as large trees, generally more than 32 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) with the presence of potential nest platforms or deformities sufficient in size to support adult murrelets. In California, murrelets begin nesting from early April to early July. Adults usually fly from ocean feeding areas to nest sites at dusk and dawn to feed their young. For suitable habitat to occur, nest trees (platform trees) must be present and need to be surrounded by other large trees (a nest tree cannot be an isolated tree). The surrounding trees need not be platform trees, but serve more to provide shelter to the platform tree. A marbled murrelet habitat assessment was prepared in March 2007, Figure 10. Several observations of marbled murrelet have been recorded in the Preserve. Radar surveys and protocol level surveys have detected murrelet 1/2 mile upstream (east) from the project site. The nearest potentially suitable habitat (older stands with structure) is ¾ mile away and occupied habitat was documented 1-mile upstream. When the District acquired the property, few old growth trees are known to remain in the Preserve. It is likely, however, the murrelets fly over the project site. No suitable habitat exists within the project site for the marbled murrelet: the open canopy and small diameter redwood trees do not meet the nesting requirements of the marbeled murrelet. Due to the short-term nature of the project, the distance to potential suitable habitat, the minimal equipment involved in project construction, and avoiding work during murrelet foraging hours, no indirect adverse noise-related impacts to nesting marbled murrelets would occur as a result of the project. The project avoids tree removal to the extent practicable by constructing the bridge in a previously disturbed site. Nonetheless, the project will require the removal of two alder trees, approximately 12” and 20” inches diameter, neither of which is suitable for a nest. Impact BIO-5: Construction noise during the breeding season has the potential to impact murrelet overhead flight patterns and foraging behavior, though these potential impacts to murrelet flight patterns overhead are not well researched. Mitigations Incorporated into project for impacts to Marbeled murrelet: Mitigation Measure BIO-5. If noise generating construction activity takes place during the breeding season (April 1 to September 15), construction activity shall be restricted between 1.5 hours after sunrise to 1.5 hours before sunset to minimize disturbance of potential nesting murrelets using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland nesting and coastal habitat. Implementation: Contractor and District Staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: District Staff 39 Attachment 2 Figure 10 Project Site 40 Attachment 2 Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk The Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk are both State species of special concern that are considered rare breeders in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Cooper’s hawks prefer forested habitats in mountainous regions, but also use lowland riparian woodlands and forage in both dense cover and open habitats. In California, nests are usually constructed in oak trees. The local breeding season spans from March through July. Sharp-shinned hawks prey mostly on small songbirds and breed from April through July. Potentially suitable breeding habitat for sharp-shinned hawks occurs over much of the forested mountainous terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Nesting sharp-shinned hawks typically inhabit dense coniferous forests adjacent to foraging habit. Densely foliaged conifers that are surrounded by dense canopy cover are considered prime nesting trees. Potential Impacts to Cooper’s and sharp-shined hawks The project area may offer potential nesting and migrating habitat for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks. Temporary construction noise may create a disturbance to nesting hawks and potentially result in nest abandonment and mortality of young. Removal of trees containing hawk nests may potentially result in the loss of an active nest and mortality of young. The four to five month construction period for the project component would occur between the months of April and January and will partially overlap with raptor breeding season (April through August). See BIO-7 for Mitigations. Migratory Bird Species and Nesting Species The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), amended in 1992, includes all migratory bird species. MBTA generally prohibits the taking, killing, possession of, or harm to migratory birds species listed in Title 50 code of federal regulation (CFR) Section 10.13. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code supports the MTBA. Nesting habitat for different species may occur in the project area, including olive- sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), white- tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and yellow warbler(Dendroica petechia brewsteri). Cavity nesters such as acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus), pygmy nuthatches (Sitta pygmaea) and chestnut-backed chickadees (Parus rufescens) may occur in snags and debris left from past logging operations. Impact BIO-6 Removal of trees, shrubs or snags suitable for avian nesting (trees and snags greater than 6 inches dbh or woody shrubs greater than 8 feet tall) within the project area during the breeding season (February 1 to August 1) could destroy active nest sites or stress nesting adults and result in nest abandonment or failure. Two alder trees, greater than 6 inches DBH, are required to be removed during the final phase of construction. Mitigation incorporated into project for raptors and other nesting species: Mitigation Measure BIO-6. A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys within 30 days of the onset construction and survey all trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than 8 feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed, an appropriate buffer zone will be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. Removal of trees, snags, or woody shrubs with identified avian nests shall be postponed until all young are fledged and tree Implementation: Qualified Consulting Biologist 41 Attachment 2 Timing: Prior to construction Monitoring: District staff Bats Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western red bat (Lasiurus borealis), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) , long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) have the potential to occur in the project area. Mature trees and redwood ‘goosepen’ hollows may provide roosting habitat. Bridges are also potential roosting sites for bats. The underside of the existing bridge has been inspected by District staff several times in the past two years and no bats were present. Bats forage in riparian vegetation for insects. Impacts BIO-7: Removal of the two alder trees and riparian vegetation has the potential to remove roosting habitat and foraging habitat for pallid bats. Mitigation Incorporated into the project for impacts to pallid bats: Mitigation Measure BIO-7: If mature trees or snags will be removed during the bat breeding season (April 1 through August 31), a qualified bat biologist shall inspect trees and the bridge for potential roost sites. If no potential roost sites are found, no additional mitigation is necessary. Surveys will consist of a daytime pedestrian survey looking for evidence of bat use (e.g., guano) and/or an evening emergency survey to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts, but are not required. If roosts of pallid bats are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the bridge is removed. A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures will be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) will be replaced in consultation with CDFW and may include construction and installation of bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony size that was excluded from the original roosting site. Roost replacement will be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. The District has successfully constructed bat boxes elsewhere that have subsequently been occupied by bats. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site, the bridge may be removed. Implementation: Qualified Consulting Biologist Timing: Prior to construction Monitoring: District staff 42 Attachment 2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?     Explanation: (Source: 1, 5, 21, 22). Special-status natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection, e.g. critical habitat designated by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act, §404 of the Clean Water Act, and/or the CDFW §1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. The California Natural Diversity Database has also designated a number of natural communities as rare. Riparian habitats are considered to be sensitive and declining resources by CDFW and the USFWS. The San Mateo County Local Coastal Plan also discusses sensitive habitat. Purisima Creek and the associated vegetation community within the project site is considered riparian habitat under San Mateo County’s Local Coastal Plan. The project’s erosion control measures allow the project to avoid adverse erosion and water quality degradation impacts to riparian areas as a result of ground-disturbing construction activities. Refer to Sections VI(b) and VIII(c) for further discussion. No net less of in riparian habitat will occur as a result of this project; replanting the existing bridge site provides a 2:1 area to replant. Impact BIO-8 Removal of riparian vegetation around the proposed bridge will have an adverse impact on riparian habitat. Mitigation incorporated into project for riparian habitat: Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Replant appropriate vegetation at a 2:1 ratio in the project area, as seen in Figure 5. This would include planting within the rock slope protection placed on the channel banks. Planting within the site shall occur in three general planting zones: active channel, lower shaded riparian, upper riparian/upland, and direct seeding (upland). Active channel is the zone nearest to the channel flow and represents the planting that shall be completed around the pools, habitat structures, and riffle edges. This zone is comprised of willows. The second zone, lower shade riparian, is comprised of riparian shrubs like dogwood, coffeberry, and currant. The third zone is upper riparian/upland that is largely composed of trees, such as red alders and redwoods, and woody shrubs. The highest elevation zone shall consist of a native erosion control mix. Implementation: Contractor and District Staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: District Staff 43 Attachment 2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV(c) 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?     Explanation: (Sources: 1, 10). The Clean Water Act is a broad statute with the goal of maintaining and restoring waters of the United States. Among many provisions for the control of water pollution, Section 404 of the Act requires permits for filling of or discharge of dredged materials into wetlands and waters of the United States. Impact BIO-9: The project includes removal of the existing railcar bridge, a temporary crossing at the existing bridge site, and construction of a new bridge 100’ upstream. Installation of these structures may result in minimal fill, less than .01 acres, entering jurisdictional waters. However, given the minor extent of disturbance and the abundance of wetlands within the larger project area, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the federally protected wetland resources of the Preserve. Consequently, the project is not expected to result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Mitigation Incorporated into project for impacts to federally protected wetlands: Mitigation Measure BIO-9: To mitigate for impacts on federally protected wetlands, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be implemented. This mitigation measure would reduce impacts to wetland habitats to less than significant by requiring the area to be revegetated with native grasses and other herbaceous perennial wetland species. Implementation: Contractor and District Staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: District Staff 44 Attachment 2 Figure 11 45 Attachment 2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV(d) 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?     Explanation: (Source: 1). Resident trout will need to be excluded from the project area as the temporary culvert crossing is constructed and then deconstructed. There would be a temporary loss of fish movement. The duration of construction and deconstruction is estimated to be less than one week, making the interference a less than significant impact. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?     Explanation: (Source: 13, 14, 15) The project area is located in a densely forested setting within the Timberland Preserve-Coastal Zone (TPZ-CZ), which is exempt from permitting requirements for tree removal under San Mateo County’s Significant Tree Ordinance. Removal of non-significant trees within the Timberland Preserve Zone does not require a permit, unless the trees are located within 100 feet of a County or State scenic road or highway. The aesthetic impact of the project as it pertains to a County scenic highway is addressed in Section I. The project avoids tree removal to the extent practicable. The project will require the removal of two trees, 12” and 20” dbh red alders in the footprint of the proposed bridge, as seen in Figure 3. As discussed in section I(b), the two trees to be removed will be replaced per the County’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, tree removal will remain consistent with local tree ordinances. Since the project includes tree protection and revegetation of disturbed areas, the project would remain consistent with local ordinances protecting other biological resources and has a less than significant impact. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?     Explanation: (Source: 16, 17). No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan applies to the project area. 46 Attachment 2 Biological Resources Section Sources: 1. Coast Range Biological. Biotic Assessment and Riparian Delineration. January , 2011. 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX. Sandro Amaglio, Regional Environmental Officer. Letter to Wayne White, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 2001. 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jan Knight, Chief, Endangered Species Division. Letter to Sandro Amaglio, Regional Environmental Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency. May 14, 2001. 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX. Supplemental Environmental Assessment: FEMA-1203-DR-CA, Virginia Mill Trail Project. June 21, 2001. 5. Seymour, R. and M. Westphal. Results of a one-year survey for amphibians on lands managed by the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District in the Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Report submitted to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2000. 6. Calflora website. http://www.calflora.org/. November 26, 2002. 7. California Native Plant Society. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publications Number 1, Fifth Edition. February 1994. 8. Sander, S. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/B240.html. November 26, 2002. 9. San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Section 12000: Regulation of Removal of Significant Trees. June 11, 1990. 10. San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Section 11000: Regulation of Removal of Heritage Trees. April 5, 1977. 11. San Mateo County Department of Public Works. Endangered Species and Watershed Protection Program, Volume 1: Maintenance Standards. February 20, 2001. 12. California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/conproj/conproj.shtml. November 4, 2002. 13. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Community Conservation Planning Program. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nccp/. November 4, 2002. 14. Keith L. Bildstein and Ken Meyer. Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 482 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). 2000. 15. R.N. Rosenfield and J. Bielefeldt. Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). In The Birds of North America, No. 75 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). 1993. 16. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. California Forest Practice Rules. January 2007. 17. H.T. Harvey and Associates, California Bat Mitigation Techniques, Solutions, and Effectiveness. December 2004. 47 Attachment 2 V. CULTURAL/HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?     Explanation: (Source: 1 through 4). No above-grade historic structures are present within the project area. The project area is a disturbed site and had been subject to past logging activities as early as 1850 and continuing through the 1970sand prior construction of the existing bridge, restrooms and other Preserve amenities in the early 1980s). A literature review and records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University conducted in September 2014 indicates that the project area contains no recorded Native American or historic cultural resources. A surface inventory of the project area found no surface indications of either significant prehistoric or historic cultural materials. Subsurface excavation will be limited to removing the redwood crib logs that support the existing bridge, minor grading and replanting the area of the existing bridge, and drilling piers to support the new bridge. The existing bridge location was heavily disturbed during its construction in the mid 1970s. Impacts CULT-1 and CULT-2: Ground disturbance associated with construction in an area with the potential for unknown cultural and archaeological resources may potentially result in impacts to unknown historic, pre-historic or paleontological resources. Mitigations incorporated into project for impacts to cultural resources: Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Prior to the initiation of construction or ground disturbing activities, District staff or archaeological monitor shall conduct a meeting to train all construction personnel of the potential for exposing subsurface cultural resources and to recognize possible buried cultural resources. Implementation: District staff Timing: During a pre-construction field meeting with Contractors and Sub-Contractors Monitoring: District Staff shall require contractor and subcontractors to have each employee attend training session and sign training materials indicating attendance at education program. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If there is an unanticipated discovery of archaeological deposits or remains during project implementation, construction crews shall stop all work within 100 feet of the discovery and notify District staff. A qualified archaeologist will assess the discovery, complete an archaeological evaluation and provide recommendations. Implementation: District staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: Construction contractor and District staff With the application of the mitigations above, this impact would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated 40 Attachment 2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?     Explanation: (Source: 1 through 4). The records search performed by NWIC of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University did not identify any archaeological or historic resources in the project area. However, there is a possibility that Native Americans may have inhabited the project area prehistorically or at the time of Spanish entry into the Bay region. This region of the Santa Cruz mountains was also developed for timber harvesting and residential purposes during the 19th and 20th centuries, and it is possible that there are unknown archaeological remains from this historic period. Basin Research Associates conducted field surveys to the construction area for investigations of potential cultural resources. No surface artifacts indicative of significant archaeological resources were observed. The site was used in the 1970s to stage heavy equipment for logging operations. A pit toilet was constructed in the project site in 1980s. Therefore, the potential for discovery of intact archaeological deposits during construction of the staging area location is low. Impact CULT-3: Since the construction involves ground disturbance in an area with the potential of unknown cultural resources, the project may potentially disturb or unearth archaeological resources. Archeological resources include buried features such as stone or adobe foundations or walls, wooden remains with square nails, other historic artifacts, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, and heat-affected rock. Mitigation incorporated into project for archaeological resources: Mitigation Measure CULT-3 Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to cultural and historical resources, including buried and unknown archeological, paleontological, and human remains, to a less than significant level:  If cultural and/or historical resources are encountered during construction, every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid the resources. Work shall stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert can assess the significance of the find.  A reasonable effort will be made by the District to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect finds include fencing and covering remains with protective material such as culturally sterile soil or plywood.  If vandalism is a threat, 24-hour security shall be provided.  Construction operations outside of the find location can continue during the significance evaluation period and while mitigation for cultural and/or historical resources is being carried out, preferably with a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert monitoring any subsurface excavations.  If a resource cannot be avoided, a qualified cultural and/or historical resources expert will develop an appropriate Action Plan for treatment to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. 41 Attachment 2 The District will not proceed with construction activities within 100 feet of the find until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved.  The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural and/or historical resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current professional standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect cultural and/or historical resources encountered during construction. This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a) for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Implementation: District staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: Construction contractor and District staff With the application of the mitigation above, this impact would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     Explanation: No unique paleontological resources are known to exist within the project area. Mitigation Measure CULT-3 under section V(b) calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce potential impacts and inadvertent damage to unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level. There are no known unique geologic features within the project area. The proposed project will not substantially change the overall landform and therefore the uniqueness of any geologic feature will not be significantly impacted by the project. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     42 Attachment 2 Explanation: (Source: 1, 4, 5). No human remains are known to exist within the project area. However, given the possibility of prehistoric resources, as discussed under V(b) above, unknown human remains may be present in the project area and may be discovered during project construction. Impact CULT-4: Since the construction of the project involves ground disturbance in an area with a possibility of cultural and historical resources, the project may accidentally disturb unknown human remains. Mitigation incorporated into project for disturbance of human remains: Mitigation Measure CULT-4. In the event human remains, including skeletal remains, graves, or Native American burial sites or graves, are discovered, such as during the course of any ground disturbing activities (grading, excavating, trenching, digging), construction or maintenance activities, the following procedures shall be followed: • All work shall immediately cease and there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or the area in the vicinity of the discovery. • Notify District staff immediately. • District staff shall immediately notify the San Mateo County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000- 15387). • Secure the area and no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which shall be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. • If the Coroner determines that the remains are or may be of a Native American, the Coroner shall notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) pursuant to subdivision (c) of the State Health and Safety Code within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. • If the Coroner determines that the remains are not those of a Native American, the Coroner would make recommendations for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Construction work shall not begin again until the County Coroner has examined the remains, assessed their significance, and offered recommendations for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts. Mitigation measure CULT-3 under section V(b) calls for stopping work and evaluating significance 43 Attachment 2 if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for disturbance of human remains. Implementation: District staff Timing: During construction Monitoring: Construction contractor and District staff With the application of the mitigation above, this impact would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated. Cultural Resources Section Sources: 1. Stanger, Frank M. Sawmills in the Redwoods: Logging in the San Francisco Peninsula, 1849-1967. San Mateo County Historical Association. San Mateo, California. 1967. 2. Basin Research Associates, Archaeological Review Four Bridges in Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. September 2014. 3. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. Accessed on September, 2014. 4. California Law. Official California Legislative Information website. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387; State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Accessed on September, 2014 44 Attachment 2 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:     i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.     ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?     iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv) Landslides?     VI(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?     Explanation for a and c: (Sources: 1-12). The proposed project is located within a near-wilderness rural mountain setting. No structures for human occupancy are proposed. A geotechnical investigation of the project and project area was conducted to identify engineering methods to design the safest bridge construction. The Project site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of Northern California. The geologic and geomorphic structure of the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the region, including the Santa Cruz Mountains, Marin Headlands, the Hamilton-Diablo Range, and San Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, defined by the San Andreas Fault System. Regional faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. The nearest known active fault is the San Andreas fault, located approximately 4 miles to the northeast. Other nearby active faults include the San Gregorio fault located approximately 7 miles to the southwest, the Seal Cove fault located approximately 8 miles to the northwest, the Hayward fault approximately 24 miles east-northeast and the Calaveras fault located approximately 26 miles to the east-northeast (CDMG 1994)1. A listing of active earthquake faults located in the project vicinity is presented in Table 1. Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period, 44 Attachment 2 including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Given this history, it is likely that major earthquakes will occur in the region in the future. Table 1. Active Earthquake Faults in Project Vicinity Fault Name Distance from Project Site (mi.) Direction Last Surfac e Rt Status Maximum Characteristic Moment Magnitude2 San Andreas 4 NE Historic Active 7. San Gregorio 7 SW Holocene Active 6. Seal Cove 8 NW Holocene Active 6. Hayward 24 E/N Historic Active 6. Calaveras 26 E/N Historic Active 6. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The regional geology of the area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay area west of the San Andreas fault, regional geology is dominated by the Salinian Block granitic basement and overlying sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age. Bedrock outcrops in the hills surrounding the site consist of the Vaqueros Formation (lower Miocene and Oligocene), arkosic sandstones, mudstone and shale, the Mindego Basalt (Miocene and/or Oligocene), volcanic basalt and tuffs, and the Lambert Shale (Oligocene and lower Miocene), mudstone, siltstone and claystone with minor chert, sandstone, and dolomite. West of the site, the Purisima Formation (Pliocene and Upper Miocene), sandstone, siltstone and mudstone, is exposed in the hills and in road cuts. East of the site along the mountain ridge, the Whiskey Hill Formation (middle and lower Eocene), including arkosic sandstone, silty claystone, glauconitic sandstone, and tuffaceous siltstone is exposed3. SITE GEOLOGY The geologic map of San Mateo County shows the site vicinity as underlain by bedrock of the Vaqueros Formation, the Mindego Basalt and the Lambert Shale. A portion of the map representing the project site and vicinity is presented as Figure 10. In our Field Investigation, as described below, we encountered alluvial soils associated with the Purisima Creek valley and bedrock consisting of arkosic sandstone, likely of the Vaqueros Formation. Gravels within the alluvial soils included sandstone, siltstone, shale, basalt and volcanic tuff. PRIMARY SEISMIC HAZARDS Fault Rupture 45 Attachment 2 (i) Fault rupture is a seismic hazard that affects structures situated above an active fault. The hazard from fault rupture is the movement of the ground surface along a fault. Typically, this movement takes place during the short time of an earthquake, but can also occur slowly over many years in a process known as fault creep. As shown on the Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) map of the Woodside Quadrangle5, the project site does not lie within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary to the site is for the San Andreas fault and is located approximately 5 miles northeast of the project site. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Surface fault rupture is not expected to occur at the site. Ground Shaking (ii) Strong ground, or seismic, shaking is a major hazard in the San Francisco Bay Region. The severity of ground shaking at any location depends on several variables such as earthquake magnitude, epicenter distance, local bedrock geology, thickness and seismic response of soil and sediment materials, ground water conditions, and topographic relief. The California Geological Survey has developed a Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment Program where probabilities for estimated peak ground acceleration are given for any location within the State. The estimates of the peak ground acceleration at the project site are approximately 69% of the acceleration due to gravity, with a 10% chance of being exceeded in 50 years6. According to maps developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)7, violent ground shaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity- MMI- Level IX) is possible in response to a large earthquake along the San Andreas fault. A major earthquake on the San Gregorio fault is expected to produce very strong ground shaking, MMI VIII on the site. The hazard of strong seismic ground shaking would be mitigated by designing structures in accordance with the California Building Code and using Seismic Design Criteria developed for the site. The hazard of strong seismic ground shaking is considered less than significant with incorporation of all applicable regulations for design and construction. 46 Attachment 2 Figure 10 47 Attachment 2 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS Seismically Induced Ground Failure (iii)Seismically induced ground failure refers to a loss of ground strength and/or cohesion as a result of seismically induced ground shaking (generated by an earthquake). There are multiple types of ground failure hazards, including liquefaction, differential settlement, lurch cracking, lateral spreading and seismically induced landslides. Seismically induced ground failure could also result in landsliding on the adjacent steeply sloping areas resulting in landslide deposition in the creek valley. Large landslides could potentially cause changes to the drainage patterns within the creek. The soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction consist of clean sands and silty sands, which were not found in the bore holes on the project site. Groundwater was present in each of the bore holes at depths of approximately commensurate with the channel bottom. However, there are clayey sand and silty sandy soils that are medium dense in the area have a low likelihood of liquefaction during earthquake-induced strong to violent ground motions. Explanation: (Sources: 12). SLOPE INSTABILITY AND LANDSLIDES (iv) The project site is a creek valley located adjacent to moderately to steeply sloping areas. The slopes in the area vary from 30 to 60 percent. Creek banks vary from 30 to 90 percent in steepness, with local instabilities caused by erosional forces in the stream and by the falling of trees in wind storms. These banks are subject to erosional and scour forces during storm events. Bank stability could also be affected by earthquake induced ground shaking resulting in bank failures. Based on potential for bank instability along Purisima Creek, the abutments for the new bridge will be protected from scour and shallow bank instabilities. In addition, following removal of the existing Harkins Bridge, the disturbed stream banks will be protected to prevent scour and planted with appropriate native vegetation to provide long term stability and riparian habitat. In accordance with the design recommendations of a Certified Geotechnical Engineer and District BMPs related to road and trail work near watercourses, the bridge will be designed and constructed to minimize future erosion and geologic failures and is no considered to have a significant impact on slope instability and landslides. The construction work would be completed in the area of the existing bridge and in the river channel. No new areas of topsoil are anticipated to be required for removal. If topsoil is removed during the project, it would be replaced during final stabilization activities. The impact of the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant. 48 Attachment 2 Explanation: (Source: 2). EXPANSIVE SOILS Expansive soils are those that shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture content. Native soils on the site consist predominantly of clayey sand and sandy lean clay soils with a low to moderate expansion potential. The site is generally susceptible to low to moderate soil expansion due to soil moisture fluctuations. However, within a redwood forest environment moisture fluctuations seasonally are not as extreme as in open, non-coastal areas. Facility improvements at the site will be designed to resist the effects of soil heave and settlement in response to seasonal moisture fluctuations in underlying soils, in areas where moisture fluctuations are expected. The potential effects of expansive clay soils would be mitigated by designing structures in accordance with the California Building Code. The hazard of expansive soils is considered less than significant with incorporation of all applicable regulations for design and construction. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?     Explanation: The self-contained, vault restroom that is installed adjacent in the project area does not use a septic system, but stores effluent waste in a contained, concrete vault. This waste is pumped out of the restroom vault at least two to three times per year and is properly disposed of. No effluent waste will be discharged as a result of this project. Effluent waste is transported via a service truck to an appropriate offsite wastewater receiving facility. The project will have no affect on the existing vault toilet. VI(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact     49 Attachment 2 Geology and Soils Section Sources: 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6. 2. 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP). Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2. USGS Open File Report 2007-1437, CGS Special Report 20, 2008. 3. US Geological Survey, Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo County, California, Open-File Report 98-137 4. US Department of Agriculture, 2012, Soil Survey of San Mateo County, California 5. California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, Digital Images of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the Richmond Quadrangle, California, 1982, 1:24,000. 6. California Geological Survey, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California 7. Association of Bay Area Governments, 2007, Earthquake Ground Shaking Scenario Maps 8. San Mateo County Department of Public Works. Endangered Species and Watershed Protection Program, Volume 1: Maintenance Standards. April 14, 2004. 9. California Division of Mines and Geology CD-ROM 2000-004 (2000). Official Map of Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Woodside Quadrangle. 1974, revised 2000. 10. Weaver, William, and Hagans, Danny. Pacific Watershed Associates. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads. June 1994. 11. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Details and Specifications Guidelines. September 2009. 12. Questa Engineering, Harkins Bridge Geotechnical Investigation Report, July 2014. 50 Attachment 2 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     B) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? C) Would the project increase greenhouse gas emissions that hinder or delay the State’s ability to meet the reduction target (25% by 2020) contain in Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)?     Explanation for A and B. Environmental Setting Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic-generated (generated by humankind) atmospheric gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). 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. GHGs, 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.” The greenhouse effect helps maintain a habitable climate. 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: • CO2, primarily a byproduct of fuel combustion;     Attachment 2 • Nitrous oxide (N2O), a byproduct of fuel combustion that is also associated with agricultural operations such as the fertilization of crops; • CH4, commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g. livestock), wastewater treatment, and landfill operations; • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, although their production has been mostly prohibited by international treaty; • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are now widely used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration and cooling; and • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), emissions of which are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a term developed to compare the propensity of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another GHG. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time of gas remains in the atmosphere. The GWP of each GHG is measured relative to CO2. Accordingly, GHG emissions are typically measured and reported in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). For instance, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is 22,800 times more intense in terms of global climate change contribution than CO2. In 2011, BAAQMD published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that included recommended thresholds for GHG emissions. BAAQMD developed these emission thresholds as a basis for meeting the overall goals adopted by California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (per Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act). A description of the justification for these thresholds was published by BAAQMD on June 2, 2010, titled BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update – Thresholds of Significance. In this document, BAAQMD recommended that land use projects with emissions exceeding 1,100 metric tons per year of equivalent carbon dioxide emissions (CO2e) should be considered significant if they have per capita emissions that exceed 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per capita. These are the only quantitative thresholds that we are aware of that are used in the Bay Area, including San Mateo County. These thresholds only apply to project operation. BAAQMD does not have GHG emission thresholds for construction activities. The temporary construction would result in short- term emissions that would certainly be below any threshold used for evaluating operational impacts. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The project would result in temporary GHG emissions as a result of construction activities. The Roadway Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1, was used to predict these emissions. Assuming bridge/overpass construction of 0.05 miles (and 0.1 acres) for five months, the model predicts emissions of 71 tons throughout the entire project. These emissions are not anticipated to contribute considerably to significant GHG emissions that contribute to the adverse effects of climate change. Significance thresholds, in terms of emissions, have not been identified for construction emissions. Attachment 2 This project has no long-term operational GHG impacts since the site would return to Preserve lands with natural habitats once construction and restoration activities are complete. There would be no impact from GHG after construction and restoration activities are complete. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? San Mateo County does not currently have an adopted Climate Action Plan. The project would beconsistent with applicable local plans, policies, and regulations and would not conflict with the provisions of AB 32, the applicable air quality plan, or any other State or regional plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Attachment 2 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?     Explanation: (Source: 1). This project will not result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The District does not currently routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials at the Preserve, and District Ordinance 93-1, Section 409.2 prohibits persons from possessing or using harmful substances on District lands. Potential risks associated with releases during the construction process are discussed in section (b), below. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?     Explanation: (Source: 1, 6, 7). Under District Ordinance 93-1, the operation of unauthorized motor vehicles within the interior of the Preserve is prohibited. General public use of the Preserve is limited to low-intensity, non-motorized, and non-emitting uses, including hiking, bicycling, and equestrian use. The possibility of the incidental release of motor vehicle oil, grease, or fuel is therefore limited to the infrequent use of the interior Preserve trails and roads by District patrol and maintenance vehicles and occasional emergency responders, the vehicles and machinery used during the construction process, and the vehicles that will park in the parking area. The project will not result in a significant increase in maintenance, patrol, or emergency response use of the Preserve. Construction activities will include best management practices (BMPs), based on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, to reduce the potential for release of construction-related fuels and other hazardous materials into the environment, as follows: BMP Category BMP Description Timing Inspection and Maintenance Solid Waste Management Remove all trash and construction-related waste to a secured, covered location at the end of each working day to maintain a clean worksite. Dispose of hazardous materials according to all specified regulations. Implement during construction. Inspect for trash on a daily basis. Materials Storage Store chemicals in a non-reactive container. Store bagged, dry reactive materials in a secondary container. Protect all material storage areas from vandalism. Implement during construction. Inspect storage areas daily to ensure no leaks or spills have occurred. 48 Attachment 2 Spill Prevention and Control Good housekeeping practices shall be followed to minimize storm water contamination from any petroleum products or other chemicals. Maintain spill cleanup materials where readily accessible during use. Implement during construction. Clean up leaks and spills immediately using absorbent materials and as little water as possible. Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance & Fueling Conduct proper and timely maintenance of vehicles and equipment. Cleaning or equipment maintenance shall be prohibited except in designated areas located near the entrance to the Preserve. If fueling must occur on-site, use designated areas located away from drainage courses and use a drip pan to catch spills. Place drip pans under heavy equipment stored onsite overnight. Implement during construction. Inspect on-site vehicles and equipment for leaks on a routine basis; periodically check incoming vehicles for leaking oil and fluids while on paved roads near the entrance to the Preserve. Training All personnel shall be instructed regarding the correct procedure for spill prevention and control, waste disposal, use of chemicals, and storage of materials. Implement during construction. None. The risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment is therefore considered less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     Explanation: (Source: 2). The project area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school, Alvin Hatch Elementary, is located approximately five miles northwest of the project area. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII(d) 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, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     Explanation: (Source: 3). The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites. No EPA regulated facilities are found in the project area or the Preserve. 49 Attachment 2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?     VII(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?     Explanation for e and f: (Source: 4). The project is not within an airport land use plan, within two miles of an airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport is the Half Moon Bay Airport, some 10 miles away. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     Explanation: The project will not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans and evacuation plans, as there are none for the area. The project will not add residents or significantly increase the number of visitors to the area and therefore will not increase resources required for emergency response or evacuation. Because the project requires minimal import of construction materials, vehicle trips up and down public roads are limited. Emergency traffic along Purisima Creek Road is unlikely to be affected by equipment or vehicle trips to and from the site.. The new bridge will support the weight of emergency vehicles and will therefore increase the ability of emergency responders to operate within the Preserve. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII(h) 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?     Explanation: (Sources: 1, 5). The project area is located in a minimally developed portion of unincorporated San Mateo County in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) designates the project area as lying within a zone of Very high fire hazard severity, based on local vegetation type (fuel loading), slope and weather. However, the project will not change the degree of exposure to wildfires, because the Preserve is already open to public use. The Preserve has approximately 24 miles of trails and unpaved roads open to hiking, mountain bicycling, and equestrian use, including trails that are located within the project area. . 50 Attachment 2 District Ordinance 93-1 Section 404 prohibits fires and smoking on District lands. In addition, District Rangers, who are trained in fire-fighting techniques and carry fire suppression equipment, regularly patrol the Preserve. District staff generally serve as first responders to fire emergencies within the preserves, with the primary fire protection responsibility falling to CAL FIRE, County Fire Departments, and municipal fire protection agencies. The District’s radio and repeater system combined with ranger patrols and staff on call 24 hours per day enable prompt and effective communication with emergency service providers in the event of a wildland fire or an emergency response call. During project construction, the most likely source of ignition is by mechanical activities such as chain saw operations, re-fueling, or mowing. The chance for an ignition can be greatly reduced through equipment features, fuel treatment, and management of behavior. Impacts HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3 and HAZ-4: Construction activities increase the risk of wildland fire. Mitigation incorporated into project for wildland fire: HAZ-1. All equipment to be used during construction must have an approved spark arrestor. HAZ-2. Cut grass and reduce fuels around construction sites where vehicles are allowed to park. HAZ-3. Minimize use of mechanical construction equipment during hot, dry, windy weather. HAZ-4. Hired contractors shall be required to: i) Provide water to suppress potential fires caused by the work performed. ii) Remind workers that smoking is prohibited at the work site and on any District land per contract conditions and District Ordinance. iii) Maintain working ABC fire extinguishers on all vehicles in the work area. iv) Contact both Mountain View Dispatch at (650) 968-4411 and the California Department of Forestry, Skylonda, at (650) 851-1860 for emergency response in the event of a fire (these numbers are to report emergencies only). Implementation: Contractors Timing: During construction Monitoring: District Staff Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section Sources: 1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No. 93-1, July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No. 04-01, August 25, 2004. 2. Google Maps. www.google.com/maps. Search of project site and school locations. Information accessed on August 15th, 2014. 3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/myenvironment/ 4. United States Geological Survey. Woodside 7.5-minute series quadrangle map. 1991. 51 Attachment 2 5. CAL FIRE. Maps of Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the State Responsibility Area of California, San Mateo County. Adopted November 7, 2007. 6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Details and Specifications Guidelines. September 2009. 7. Regional Water Quality Control Board. Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual. August 2002. 52 Attachment 2 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?     IX(c) 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 would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?     IX(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     Explanation for a, c, and f: (Sources: 1 through 6). These three items are interrelated and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. This project involves the demolition of an existing bridge, construction of a new bridge and footings, and minor vegetation removal to connect the existing roads to the new bridge. The demolition of the existing bridge requires removing or modifying the redwood crib logs that currently serve as abutments to the bridge. The construction of the new bridge, minor grading on the approach, and vegetation removal on the approach will cause minor changes in the drainage pattern of the road. No significant changes in the pattern or amount runoff is anticipated. The new bridge will be located above the 100-year flood plain, thus avoid direct interaction with the stream and the potential for altering the course of the stream. The construction activities are designed with drainage and erosion prevention measures as shown in Figure 3 and detailed in the District’s BMPs for road and trail construction and maintenance near watercourses. These BMPs for erosion and sediment control, previously approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Regional Water Board and in use by the District, would be implemented during project construction to avoid impacts such as erosion at the project site. All exposed soil surfaces in the construction area will be seeded and mulched. These measures and the design of the new bridge will prevent the concentration of surface runoff that could result in erosion or siltation and allow the project to avoid substantial erosion on-site or siltation off-site, thus reducing the potential impact under item IX(c) to a less than significant level. Sedimentation can also result from wind and water erosion. As discussed in Section III(b), the project’s dust suppression measures and the dense vegetation and tree canopy buffering the construction zone from winds will minimize the potentially negative water quality effects of wind erosion. As discussed in Section VI(b), the project will be constructed during a mostly dry but potentially wet time of year (July-October), and erosion control measures will be installed prior to the onset of rains to avoid erosion due to surface runoff. Potential negative water quality impacts from construction involving the accidental release of hazardous materials are discussed in Section VII(b). Therefore, potential for the project to otherwise substantially degrade water quality or violate any water quality standard is reduced to a less than significant level. 53 Attachment 2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?     Explanation: The project will not pump groundwater and therefore does not interfere with groundwater recharge and has no impact on groundwater supplies. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?     IX(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?     IX(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?     IX(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?     Explanation for d, e, h, and i: (Source: 5). These four checklist items are interrelated and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. The Preserve is located in the Purisima Creek watershed approximately five miles east of Half Moon Bay, California. Precipitation in the watershed is highly seasonal, with 90% falling between October and April. The extensive open space lands surrounding the project provide a vegetated buffer for the project and allow rain to percolate into the ground rather than running off rapidly. By following the recommendations outlined in the Geotechincal Report and through the measures outlined in the explanations for A, C, and F, these design features little to no storm water is anticipated to exit the site as a result of this project. The project would not substantially alter the site drainage patterns or increase the amount of runoff. The new bridge has been designed to accommodate a 100-year flood flow. The proposed project will not place any structures within the 100-year floodplain that might impede flood flows. 54 Attachment 2 Per standard District practice, District personnel regularly check drainage structures during and after storms, provide signage and barricades if needed, and perform maintenance as needed to ensure proper functioning of drainage structures and reduce the possibility that the project would expose people to significant flood risks. Therefore, potential for the project to result in flooding, expose people to flooding risks, exceed the capacity of drainage systems, or impede flood flows is reduced to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX(g) 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?     Explanation: The project does not involve housing. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?     Explanation: (Sources: 4, 5). The project is situated at approximately 435 feet above mean sea level, approximately 4 miles from the ocean. Seiche or tsunamis would have no impact on the site. Landslides are common in the Santa Cruz Mountains and are one of the dominant geologic forces shaping the current landscape. Oversteepened slopes due to tectonic uplift and rapid downcutting of streams coupled with high intensity rainfall or intense seismic activity have resulted in a number of large and small-scale landslides. Large, deep-seated bedrock landslides are also common in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and typically appear to be initiated or reactivated by strong ground motions during earthquakes. These failures are characterized by benched topography and are formed by translational movement of a relatively intact mass with a failure plane that extends below the colluvial layer into the underlying bedrock layer. Natural slide movement is attributed to weak earth materials that underlie much of the slopes in conjunction with high groundwater conditions. The rate of deep-seated slide movement is considered to be slow and episodic and in response to long duration rainfall, undercutting of the slope by stream bank erosion, and/or seismic ground shaking from nearby faults. Future movement should be expected to be in response to intense, extended rainfall events or intense ground shaking during earthquakes, and most likely as small scale displacements similar to what has occurred in the past. Catastrophic failure of large slides is not expected. Mudflows are a form of shallow-seated landsliding known as debris flows. Shallow-seated landsliding is common throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains and is characterized by rapid, shallow downslope movement of surficial soil, colluvium, and weathered bed rock. Generally located on steep to very steep hillsides, most shallow slides are a result of a loss of soil tension due to the over-saturation of the soil profile from extended or intense storm events, and travel down slope in existing drainages. Old failures along old logging roads and skid trails are attributed to thick fill that was loosely sidecasted onto steep slopes, poor drainage, or failure of oversteepened cuts. Few failures have occurred in recent years, in part due to current, improved management practices. Future shallow landslides will occur within the Preserve during adverse climatic or seismic conditions regardless of land use activities. 55 Attachment 2 Debris or mudflows could expose District personnel and the public to a life-threatening event if a flow occurred while people were present. The proposed project will not increase or decrease the hazard level from such an event. However, the low probability of such an event and the limited likelihood of District personnel or the public to be in harm’s way during an intense storm necessary to precipitate such an event reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Hydrology and Water Quality Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County Department of Public Works. Endangered Species and Watershed Protection Program, Volume 1: Maintenance Standards. February 20, 2001. 2. Weaver, William, and Hagans, Danny. Pacific Watershed Associates. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads. June 1994. 3. Association of Bay Area Governments. Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control. May 1995. 4. United States Geological Survey. Woodside 7.5-minute series quadrangle map. 1991. 5. Best, Timothy. Purisima Creek Road Inventory Report. 1999. 6. Questa Engineering, Harkins Bridge Geotechnical Investigation Report, July 2014. 7. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 2007. Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures for Routine Maintenance Activities in Water Courses. 56 Attachment 2 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX(a) Physically divide an established community?     Explanation: The project is located in an existing 4,711-acre open space preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County near the city of Half Moon Bay, adjacent to Skyline Boulevard (also known as Highway 35). The project scope is contained within the Preserve. The project components will maintain public access to a popular Preserve, remove a safety hazard with the existing bridge, and support emergency response within and around the Preserve. The project will not physically divide an established community. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?     Explanation: (Sources: 1 through 7). San Mateo County Zoning The project area is located within unincorporated San Mateo County and the land is zoned Timberland Preserve Zone District –Coastal Zone (TPZ-CZ). The TPZ-CZ was in part established to protect timberlands within the County and the ecological balance of such timberlands. Compatible land uses in a TPZ that would not inhibit the growing and harvesting of timber include “management of land for wildlife habitat” and “management for recreation,” including “outdoor recreation requiring some development.” Therefore, the replacement of a vehicle bridge for access to recreational trails and emergency responses consistent with San Mateo County’s zoning ordinance. San Mateo County General Plan The designated land use throughout most of the project site, per the San Mateo County General Plan, is “Public Recreation Rural.” The District will continue to manage the Preserve for public recreation and resource protection, which is compatible with the land use designation. This project supports public recreation. Local Coastal Program Area The entire project area and much of the Preserve are within the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Area. Public recreation is a permissible use in San Mateo County’s LCP. The project allows continued recreational use of the Preserve and is compatible with the LCP. County Scenic Roadways and Caltrans Scenic Highway Guidelines Refer to Section I(b) for discussion. 57 Attachment 2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?     Explanation: (Sources: 5 and 6). No Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) applies to the project area. Land Use and Planning Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County. General Plan. Section 6 Park and Recreation Resources Policies, Section 9 Rural Land Use Policies. 1986. 2. San Mateo County. Zoning Maps. Sheet 27. May 1992 Edition. 3. San Mateo County. Zoning Regulations. Chapter 34: Timberland Preserve Zone (TPZ) District. July 1999. 4. San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission. MHA Environmental Consulting, Inc. San Mateo County 2001 Trails Plan. 2001. 5. California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Branch, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/status.html, accessed on April 22, 2008. 6. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Conservation Plans and Agreements Database, http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/public.jsp, accessed on April 22, 2008. 7. San Mateo County. Local Coastal Program. June 2012. 58 Attachment 2 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?     XI(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?     Explanation for questions a and b: (Sources: 1, 2). The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource. The site has not been classified as a Mineral Resource Zone, nor is it included in a Resource Sector in the Update of Mineral Land Classification or the mineral resources section of the San Mateo County General Plan. Field observations by District staff have revealed no evidence of the presence of mineral resources in the project area. Mineral Resources Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County. General Plan. Chapter 3: Mineral Resources. 1986. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. Open File Report 96-03. 1996. 60 Attachment 2 XII. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?     XII(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?     Explanation: (Source: 1, 4 through 8). Noise impacts are considered significant based on their levels and proximity to sensitive receptors, including schools, hospitals, religious facilities, and parks. Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve is an undeveloped open space area with low levels of ambient noise. A developed neighborhood is located approximately .75 miles from the Preserve boundaries. The main area of the project site is located approximately 700 feet from the nearest residences and separated by Preserve lands. However the construction site is located within proximity to a parking lot, an existing trail and proposed trail detour. The standard unit of measurement for sound is the decibel (dB). Sounds can range from 0 decibels (threshold of hearing) to 160 dB (instant perforation of eardrum). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly 60 dB, busy street traffic is 70 dB, and the threshold of pain is 130 dB. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another unit of measure for noise that is used as a standard for San Mateo County. CNEL measurements represent an average of measured noise levels obtained over a 24-hour period of time. A time-weighted factor is applied to account for the increased sensitivity of humans to noise in the morning, evening, and nighttime hours. This factor adds 5 dB to sounds occurring in the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and 10 dB to sounds occurring in the late evening and early morning hours (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). According to the County’s General Plan Noise Policies, noise impact areas are defined as areas with noise levels of 60 CNEL or greater. The General Plan does not specify where noise levels are measured nor for what land uses. Exterior noise exposure levels of 70 CNEL or greater are considered significant for residential developments according to the State of California. Measured in decibels, exterior noise levels in quiet residential areas are typically 40 dB or 45 to 50 CNEL. Within the Preserve and the project area, current ambient noise levels are expected to be less than 60 CNEL, similar to exterior noise levels in quiet residential areas. Conversations among users in the nearby parking lot, the non- motorized, low-intensity recreational uses and Purisima Creek are not expected to generate noise in excess of local agency standards or generate ground borne noise or vibration. The County’s General Plan Noise Policies promote measures which incorporate noise abatement into the design of roadway projects. Such measures can include smooth road surfaces and noise barriers. Slow speeds over the roadway and bridge surface and the very low volume of traffic anticipated would not generate noise in excess of local agency standards or generate ground borne noise or vibration. The construction phase of the project component is expected to last four months and would include demolition, earthmoving, and bridge construction activities. During construction, construction machinery may generate temporary increases in noise to levels as high as 95 dB. Short-term construction noise impacts would occur in discrete phases and would occur during the daylight hours of the summer and fall and buffered from adjacent properties by distance, elevation, and dense vegetation. The construction site is located approximately 300 feet from Higgins Canyon Road, far outside the line of site of the nearest house located approximately 700 feet away and is screened by topography and 61 Attachment 2 vegetation. Trail users approach the site may experience increased noise during construction activities. Given the small size of the project area, potential impacts will be minor and ephemeral. Since the project is small-scale in nature, any potential generation of noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL resulting from the project would be localized and limited to the short-term construction period. Any potential exposure to and generation of excessive vibration or noise resulting from the project would also be localized and limited to the short-term, three to four month construction period of the project. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     Explanation: (Source: 2, 4 through 7). Within the Preserve and project area, current ambient noise levels are under 60 CNEL. The surrounding roads and trails have non-motorized low-intensity recreational uses, which would not generate substantial noise. In addition, under District Ordinance 96-1, operation of motor vehicles by the public within the Preserve itself is prohibited, thus limiting motor vehicle activity within the Preserve to ranger patrol and maintenance vehicles. No expansion of maintenance or patrol levels would be required by the project and therefore, potential vehicular noise generated by District patrol vehicles would be localized and intermittent. Because the project will not increase vehicular traffic or engine starts beyond existing levels, the project will not generate a permanent, substantial increase in ambient noise. Moreover, District Ordinance 93-1 prohibits after-hours use of the Preserve. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     Explanation: (Source: 6, 8, 7, and 9). Within the Preserve and project area, current ambient noise levels are under 60 CNEL. During the construction phase, which is expected to last three to four months, construction machinery may generate temporary increases in noise levels. However, short-term construction noise impacts would occur in discrete phases and would occur during the daylight hours of the summer and fall, located in an area that and buffered from adjacent properties by distance, elevation, and dense vegetation. The following activities are exempt from Chapter 4.88 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code: • Noise sources associated with demolition, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. weekdays, 5:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays, Thanksgiving and Christmas. 62 Attachment 2 The project construction activities will only occur during the hours in the above County ordinance. Therefore, the temporary increase in noise is not expected to be substantial. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     XII(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     Explanation for e and f: (Source: 3). The project is neither located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of an airport, nor within the vicinity of a private airport. Noise Section Sources: 1. San Mateo County. General Plan. Chapter 16 Man-Made Hazards Policies, Noise Policies. 1986. 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No. 93-1, July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No. 04-01, August 25, 2004. 3. United States Geological Survey. Woodside 7.5-minute series quadrangle map. 1991. 4. Roger L. Wayson, Ph.D., P.E. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. NCHRP Synthesis 268. Relationship Between Pavement Surface Texture and Highway Traffic Noise. 1998. 5. California Department of Transportation. Pavement Advisory PSTPA-02: Designing Quieter Pavements. September 6, 2005. 6. California Department of Transportation. Typical Noise Levels, Intensity and the Decibel Scale Chart. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ope/NoiseLevels.html. Accessed September 16, 2009. 7. California Department of Transportation. Safety Manual. Chapter 13 Hearing Protection Program. June 2008. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/opo/safety/safetymanual_toc.htm 8. CPWR (The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights). Construction Noise Hazard Alert. December 29, 2003. 9. San Mateo County Ordinance Code, Title 4, Chapter 4.88 – Noise Control, Section 4.88.360. 63 Attachment 2 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentiall y Significan t Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact XIII(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?     XIII(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     XIII(c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     Explanation for questions a, b and c: The project neither induces population growth nor displaces housing or people. The project also does not include the construction or removal of habitable structures. The project replaces an existing vehicular roadway and bridge, that is not accessible to the public and is used strictly by District staff and emergency responders. Therefore, the project will have no affect on population growth. 64 Attachment 2 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:     Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Explanation: The District’s Operations Department already provides ranger patrol in the Preserve and maintenance staff to care for trails, bridges and parking areas. The District coordinates with other local agencies via mutual aid arrangements in providing public services, including police and fire protection. District Staff is responsible for enforcing District regulations and certain selected sections of California code pertaining to vandalism, bicycle helmets, and parking. The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office is involved in enforcement of all other code sections. District staff serves as a possible first responder for fire emergencies, with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) acting as the responsible agency for fire prevention, (i.e. within the State Responsibility Area) and suppression at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Nearby Preserves include Burleigh Murray Ranch State Park, Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve, and El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. This project will have any direct or indirect affect on these other parks and preserves. Because the project will not substantially increase usage of the Preserve, no new or altered governmental facilities will be needed to provide public services to the Preserve as a result of the project. 65 Attachment 2 XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?     XV(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?     Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 1 and 2). Replacing the existing bridge will not increase the recreational use of Purisima Creek Redwood Open Space Preserve to a level that would result in a substantial physical deterioration of the Preserve, the natural resources, or the existing trail systems. The 4,711-acre Preserve is currently open to the public and offers approximately 24 miles of mostly multiple-use trail. Preserve visitors currently park at three locations: (a) a six vehicle parking lot just adjacent to the existing bridge along Higgins Canyon Road, (b) a 22-car parking lot at the top of the Preserve along Skyline Boulevard, and (c) along a informal parking lot pullout on Skyline Boulevard. This project would not affect the desirability of parking at the nearby Higgins Canyon parking lot, as it only replaces an existing bridge and allows continued existing uses. As observed by District Ranger staff, highest visitation occurs on weekends and holidays in the summer months. The nearby parking lot is almost always full during the weekend, weekdays after normal working hours, and holidays. Due to the trail system and the subsequent dispersal of users throughout the Preserve, this increase is not expected to result in substantial impacts to the trail system or to the natural resources in the Preserve. For a discussion on bridge design and construction and the potential impacts to water quality or loss of topsoil, please refer to Section VI and Section IX. Recreation Section Sources: 1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Visitor Estimate Survey Project Counts completed by the Public Affairs Department. June 25, 2007 – July 8, 2007. 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Visitor Counts. 1995 through 1997. 66 Attachment 2 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?     XVI(b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?     XVI(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Explanation for a, b, and f: As explained in Section XV, replacing the bridge will not increase public visitation to the Preserve. The existing bridge is used by the public (hiking, biking, and equestrian use) and the public will be able to continue use of the new bridge. District patrol and maintenance currently use the Preserve by way of Purisima Creek Road, Higgins Canyon Road, and Highway 35. The bridge will not increase District traffic on public roads. These patrol and maintenance visits are infrequent (a maximum of seven visits per week can be assumed) and therefore the impact is considered less than significant. Additional trips during the construction period will occur as contractors, engineers, District staff, and construction equipment access the site. The surrounding area is sparsely populated and is a mix of rural resident and agricultural land uses. Vehicles are generally leaving homes along Purisima Creek, headed towards working areas. Construction related trips are headed in the opposite direction. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI(c) 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?     Explanation: The project has no effect on air traffic patterns. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?     Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI(e) Result in inadequate emergency access?         68 Attachment 2 Explanation for D and E: Within the Preserve and trail system, motorized vehicles by the public are not allowed per District ordinance. Motor vehicle access within the Preserve will be limited to ranger patrol and maintenance vehicles, and the number of patrol vehicles accessing the Preserve would not be increased as a result of the project. The new bridge will be designed with a 50’ turn radius to accommodate emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks, and infrequent heavy equipment use by District maintenance. The current bridge is inadequate and hazardous with heavy vehicles and the project will improve the access roadway and bridge for safer emergency access. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?     Explanation: This project supports existing alternative modes of transportation, principally walking, biking, and equestrian use. The Preserve and the bridge itself are not open to public transportation and will not have any impact on alternative transportation. The closest public transportation is SamTrans 17 along Highway 1, 3.5 miles away. 69 Attachment 2 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     XVII(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     Explanation for a and b: The project does not provide water services, would not consume water, and would not generate wastewater. The project thus does not include new or increased needs for wastewater treatment or wastewater treatment facilities. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     Explanation: (Sources: 1). The proposed bridge is located on an existing, previously disturbed area on the Preserve, which would result in minimal impact on the surrounding environment. The design minimizes runoff through a number of erosion control measures, including BMPs for road and trail construction previously approved by the RWQCB and CDFW. There are no storm water drainage facilities on site and the project does not propose any expansion of existing facilities or new facilities. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?     XVII(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?     Explanation for d and e: The project does not provide water services, would not consume water, and would not generate wastewater. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?     XVII(g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     72 Attachment 2 Explanation for questions f and g: (Source: 1). The demolition debris consists of rusted steel girders, which will be recycled, untreated redwood decking, which will be recycled, and bolts and other fixtures. The debris generated by the project is minimal and will comply with all federal, state, and local statues. Utilities and Service Systems Section Sources: 1. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Adopted by Ordinance No. 93-1, July 28, 1993. Last Revised and Adopted by Ordinance No. 04-01, August 25, 2004. 73 Attachment 2 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?     Explanation: As previously discussed in other sections of this document, the project (including mitigation measures incorporated into the project) would not degrade the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in this document (all of which have been incorporated into the project) would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII(b) 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)?     Explanation: As previously discussed in other sections of this document, the impact analysis identifies possible future open space management projects that may produce related impacts, and then examines how the proposed project and these possible future open space management actions may potentially result in cumulative impacts. In general, the inherently low intensity uses in the Preserve and dispersed nature of the open space management program minimizes the potential for cumulative impacts, since any less than significant impact would generally be site-specific, localized, and not expected to have the potential for considerable combined cumulative impacts throughout the region. The possibility of cumulatively considerable impacts is minimized by the overall lack of disturbance to the watershed as a whole associated with open space use. Unlike residential and economic development projects in urban or suburban areas, the District only implements minimal improvements such as parking lots, bridges, unpaved roads, and natural surface trails within its open space lands. The proposed project, along with similar land management actions by the District or other open space and recreation agencies, would tend to support regional resource protection and enhance public recreational opportunities for local and regional residents and as such have 74 Attachment 2 a beneficial combined cumulative impact. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     Explanation: The purpose of the project is to provide emergency vehicle and patrol access to portions of the Preserve. Both of these functions ensure the safety of the Preserve users are met and would provide a beneficial impact to people. There are many beneficial aspects for preserve users to open space recreation that are supported by this project. The project will not result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. 75 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE HARKINS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was formulated based on the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Harkins Bridge Replacement Project (proposed project) prepared for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). This MMRP is in compliance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that the Lead Agency “adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.” The MMRP has been prepared in tabular form (see Table 1). The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements. Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is the first mitigation measure identified in the IS/MND. The first column of Table 1 identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Party Responsible for Implementation,” names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Implementation Timing,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Party Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. “Action by Monitor” outlines the steps for monitoring the action identified in the mitigation measure. The last column, entitled “Monitoring Timing,” states the time the monitor must ensure that the mitigation measure has been implemented. 2 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring IV. Biological Resources BIO-1 Special-status Plants Species Focused plant surveys for each species listed in the Biological Assessment shall be conducted in the spring prior to initial ground breaking to determine the species’ presence or absence in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If any special- status plant species are found, areas supporting the species shall be avoided, where feasible. Work shall not start if a special-status plant specimen and its required habitat conditions are found within the impact area while a plan detailing on-site mitigation is developed based on consultation with CDFW. Construction work may start once such plan has been approved by CDFW. : Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist. In the spring prior to construction of the project. Operations Project Manager 1. Preconstruction Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct San Francisco dusky- footed woodrat nest surveys prior in the February prior to initial ground breaking and just prior to groundbreaking to determine the presence or absence of nests in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. If feasible, disturbance of woodrat nests shall be avoided by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from known nest sites. BIO-2 San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat If during the survey, a woodrat nest is detected, the District will complete one of the following avoidance minimization measures. These measures are listed in order of priority, where the first measure is the preferred measure to be implemented as it provides the least amount of impact to the woodrat. If the first measure cannot be implemented due to extenuating site conditions, the second shall be implemented and so forth down the list. a. Any trail alignment, access road or staging area will be relocated to avoid the woodrat nest by at least 5 feet. Safety and/or silt fencing (for nests downslope) will be erected around all nests within 25 feet of the trail alignment, road or staging area to avoid impacts during construction. b. For all woodrat nests that cannot be avoided by project activities (i.e. will require relocation), the CDFW should be consulted with one of the two following options: i. If the nest appears inactive (e.g. no scat or fresh leaves and twigs), approval will be sought from CDFW to dismantle the nest and replace the lost resource by building an artificial nest. One artificial nest should be built for every one existing inactive nest that is dismantled. Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist, project supervisor and project crew members. The February prior to construction and just prior to construction Operations Project Manager Table 1 Continued 3 Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Bio-2 Continued… ii. If the nest appears active, approval will be sought from CDFW to (1) trap the occupant(s) of the nest, (2) dismantle the nest, (3) construct a new artificial nest with the materials from the dismantled nest, and (4) release the occupant into the new artificial nest. The new nest should be placed no more than 20 feet from its original location and as far from the project footprints as necessary to be protected from construction activities. Nests should only be moved in early morning during the non- breeding season (October through February). If trapping has occurred for three consecutive nights and no wooodrats have been captured, the nest should be dismantled and a new nest constructed. A CNDDB form shall be filled out and submitted to CDFW for any San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats that are trapped. Once trapped, nests shall be torn down and rebuilt surrounding an inverted wooden planter (or similar structure) having at least one entrance and exit hole that is slightly buried into the ground to anchor. Any nest material encountered shall be placed within the nest structure during rebuilding. A small handful of seeds shall be placed within the relocated structure. Relocated nests are intended to provide a release site and opportunity for the woodrats to relocate to another nest (most woodrats average more than one nest and often do not remain with a relocated nest). Once nests are moved, any trapped woodrats should be released into the reconstructed nest during daylight hours so that they seek refuge in the reconstructed nests. In most instances it is expected that the animal will remain in the reconstructed nest until it has an opportunity to relocate to another nest site at night. Relocated nests are expected to eventually be re-colonized and should be monitored one year post construction using visual surveys to determine if a relocated nest has returned to use. A monitoring report should be submitted to CDFW to document use or non/use of relocated nests. 2. Employee and Contractor Education Program. The District will conduct an employee education program prior to the initiation of project activities. The program will consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in special status species biology and legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees. The program would include the following: a description of woodrat and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of the woodrat and their protection under state law; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to woodrat during project activities. If a woodrat nest is found on the project footprint, it is to be left alone and all operations should stop. Notify Project site lead and District Staff (if the site lead is a contractor) or notify District Natural Resources Program Manager if Project Lead is District Staff. Table 1 Continued 4 Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Bio-2 Continued… 3. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist, District Natural Resources staff or a trained, on-site monitor will check the site in the morning every day before construction activities begin for the presence of woodrat or other wildlife present within the work area. If a woodrat is found, the monitor shall have the authority to stop construction in the immediate area and immediately notify appropriate District Staff (Natural Resources Program Manager or designated staff). If the monitor is the District’s Natural Resources Staff, or qualified biologist, they will have the authority to notify the CDFW for guidance on procedure. Subsequent recommendations made by the CDFW shall be followed. The monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. 4. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the construction area if these species have been determined to be present. If any woodrat is seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no woodrat is on the ground below the vehicle. BIO-3 California Red Legged Frog : 1. Pre-Construction Surveys for Special-Status Amphibians including California Red- Legged Frog (CRLF). Surveys for CRLF and other special-status amphibians shall be conducted before construction begins. In the unlikely event CRLF eggs or tadpoles are found, a 100-foot buffer shall be established around the location until juveniles disperse from the breeding site, as determined by a qualified biologist. If adults are present in the construction area, work shall be stopped until individuals are allowed to disperse on their own volition or the species is relocated by a qualified biologist with permission to handle CRLF. With these measures in place, the impact for CRLF would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Employee and Contractor Education Program. An employee and contractor education program shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel on CRLF identification and procedures should CRLF be observed in the project area. If a CRLF is found on the project footprint, it is to be left alone and all operations should stop. Notify Project site lead and District Staff (if the site lead is a contractor) or notify District Natural Resources Program Manager if Project Lead is District Staff. Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist, project supervisor and project crew members. Prior to construction during construction as specified Operations Project Manager Table 1 Continued 5 Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Bio 3 Continued…. 3. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist, District Natural Resources staff or a trained, on-site monitor will check the site in the morning every day before construction activities begin for the presence of CRLF or other wildlife present within the work area. If a CRLF is found, the monitor shall have the authority to stop construction in the immediate area and immediately notify appropriate District Staff (Natural Resources Program Manager or designated staff). The monitor would not handle or try to relocate any special-status species. 4. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5 miles per hour within the construction area if these species have been determined to be present. If any CRLF is seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked underneath before they are moved to ensure that no CRLF is on the ground below the vehicle. BIO-4 Compliance with Other Permits Project Compliance with All State and Federal Permits. The project may potentially affect a number of species that fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW, USFWS, and NMFS. Each of these permits would be reviewed by agency personal experts in conservation of these sensitive species. The federal permits granted under Section 404 of the : Clean Water Act would be required for the construction of the project. The State of California would also have to issue a streambed alteration and agreement for the project. The project shall attain and comply with all state and federal permits for the project. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species to less than significant level. Qualified District Natural Resources Staff or Qualified Consulting Biologist, project supervisor and project crew members. Prior to construction during construction as specified Operations Project Manager Table 1 Continued 6 Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring BIO-5 Marbeled Murrelets If noise generating construction activity takes place during the breeding season (April 1 to September 15), construction activity shall be restricted between 1.5 hours after sunrise to 1.5 hours before sunset to minimize disturbance of potential nesting murrelets using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland nesting and coastal habitat. : Contractor and District staff During construction from April 1st to September 15th Operations Project Manager BIO-6 Nesting Birds District Biologist : A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys within 30 days of the onset of all trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than 8 feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed, an appropriate buffer zone will be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. Removal of trees, snags, or woody shrubs with identified avian nests shall be postponed until all young are fledged and tree 30 days prior to construction, February 15 to August 15 Operations Project Manager If mature trees or snags will be removed during the bat breeding season (April 1 through August 31), a qualified bat biologist shall inspect trees and the bridge for potential roost sites. If no potential roost sites are found, no additional mitigation is necessary. Surveys will consist of a daytime pedestrian survey looking for evidence of bat use (e.g., guano) and/or an evening emergency survey to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts, but are not required. BIO-7 Pallid Bats If roosts of pallid bats are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the bridge is removed. A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures will be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one- way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) will be replaced in consultation with CDFW and may include construction and installation of bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony size that was excluded from the original roosting site. Roost replacement will be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. The District has successfully constructed bat boxes elsewhere that have subsequently been occupied by bats. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site, the bridge may be removed. Qualified consulting biologist Prior to tree removal and bridge demolition, April 1st and August 31st. Operations Project Manager Table 1 Continued 7 Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Replant appropriate vegetation at a 2:1 ratio in the project area, as seen in Figure 5. This would include planting within the rock slope protection placed on the channel banks. Planting within the site shall occur in four general planting zones: active channel, lower shaded riparian, upper riparian/upland, and direct seeding (upland). Active channel is the zone nearest to the channel flow and represents the planting that shall be completed around the pools, habitat structures, and riffle edges. This zone is comprised of willows. The second zone, lower shdade riparian, is comprised of riparian shrub like dogwood, coffeberry, and current. The third zone is upper riparian/upland that is largely composed of trees, such as red alders and redwoods, and woody shrubs. The highest elevation zone shall consist of a native erosion control mix. BIO-8 Riparian Habitat Contractor and District Staff During construction, the fall and winter following construction Operations Project Manager To mitigate for impacts on federally protected wetlands, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be implemented. This mitigation measure would reduce impacts to wetland habitats to less than significant by requiring the area to be revegetated with native grasses and other herbaceous perennial wetland species. BIO-9 Federally protected wetlands Contractor and District Staff During construction Operations Project Manager V. Cultural Resources Prior to the initiation of construction or ground disturbing activities, District staff or archaeological monitor shall conduct a meeting to train all construction personnel of the potential for exposing subsurface cultural resources and to recognize possible buried cultural resources. CULT-1 Subsurface Cultural Resources District staff, archaeological monitor During a pre- construction field meeting with Contractors and Sub-Contractors Operations Project Manager If there is an unanticipated discovery of archaeological deposits or remains during project implementation, construction crews shall stop all work within 100 feet of the discovery and notify District staff. A qualified archaeologist will assess the discovery, complete an archaeological evaluation and provide recommendations. CULT-2 Archaeological Deposits District archaeologist Throughout the construction period Construction contractor and Operations Project Manager Table 1 Continued 8 Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring In the event human remains, including skeletal remains, graves, or Native American burial sites or graves, are discovered, such as during the course of any ground disturbing activities (grading, excavating, trenching, digging), construction or maintenance activities, the following CULT-3 Human Remains: procedures shall be followed: • All work shall immediately cease and there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or the area in the vicinity of the discovery. • Notify District staff immediately. • District staff shall immediately notify the San Mateo County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). • Secure the area and no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which shall be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the Coroner determines that the remains are or may be of a Native American, the Coroner shall notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) pursuant to subdivision (c) of the State Health and Safety Code within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. District staff and Contractor During construction Construction contractor and Operations Project Manager Table 1 Continued 9 Mitigation Measures Party Responsible for Implementation Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Cult 3 Continued… • If the Coroner determines that the remains are not those of a Native American, the Coroner would make recommendations for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Construction work shall not begin again until the County Coroner has examined the remains, assessed their significance, and offered recommendations for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts. Mitigation measure CULT-2 under section V(b) calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for disturbance of human remains. VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Haz-1 through 4 Wildland Fire HAZ-1 . All equipment to be used during construction must have an approved spark arrestor. HAZ-2 . Cut grass and reduce fuels around construction sites where vehicles are allowed to park. HAZ-3 . Minimize use of mechanical construction equipment during hot, dry, windy weather. HAZ-4 i) Provide water to suppress potential fires caused by the work performed. . Hired contractors shall be required to: ii) Remind workers that smoking is prohibited at the work site and on any District land per contract conditions and District Ordinance. iii) Maintain working ABC fire extinguishers on all vehicles in the work area. Contact both Mountain View Dispatch at (650) 968-4411 and the California Department of Forestry, Skylonda, at (650) 851-1860 for emergency response in the event of a fire (these numbers are to report emergencies only). Contractor During Construction Operations Project Manager Attachment 4 Resolutions/2014/14-___Harkins Bridge– Adopt MND & MMP 1 RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND THE FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED HARKINS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PURISIMA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE) WHEREAS The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“District”) has reviewed the proposed Harkins Bridge Replacement Project and all associated actions (“the Project”) and has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) analyzing the environmental effects of the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the District Board of Directors that, based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented, the Board of Directors find that: 1. Notice of the availability of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and all hearings on the MND were 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 Board of Directors. 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 Board finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and MND, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment in that, although the proposed Project could have significant effects 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. 5. The Board adopts the MND and determines that the MND reflects the District’s independent judgment and analysis 6. The Board adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and will require it to be implemented as part of the Project. 7. The location and custodian of the documents or other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the offices of the General Manager of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. Attachment 4 Resolutions/2014/14-___Harkins Bridge– Adopt MND & MMP 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on _____, 2014, 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 R-14-152 Meeting No. 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract for Environmental Analysis and Design for Stevens Creek Nature Trail Footbridges GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Environmental Science Associates for an amount not-to-exceed $125,631, which includes a contract price of $114,210 and a 10% contingency of $11,421, to complete the environmental analysis and bridge design work for a footbridge replacement and a new footbridge along Stevens Creek Nature Trail in Montebello Open Space Preserve. SUMMARY As part of the FY2014-15 Action Plan, the Board of Directors approved the design and permitting to repair or replace a deteriorating footbridge along the Stevens Creek Nature Trail in Montebello Open Space Preserve. Another footbridge project less than one-third of a mile upstream was recently identified in the Measure AA project list development. A ‘wet ford’ crossing that is impassable during the winter would be upgraded and made passable by constructing a new footbridge. These two footbridges were combined into one Measure AA project, 17-4. Environmental Science Associates (“ESA”) was qualified under a Request for Proposal and Qualifications issued on July 10, 2013 for engineering and CEQA expertise. ESA was deemed well-qualified to provide environmental/CEQA consulting services. This qualification was based on their experience working with various regulatory agencies involved with this project (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Army Corps of Engineers, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, and US Department of Fish and Wildlife) and their proven ability to deliver a superior product on a very tight schedule. Per the Board-approved Public Contract Bidding, Vendor, and Professional Consultant Selection and Purchasing Policy, consultants may be deemed qualified for future work as part of RFPs for a period of up to two years from determination of the qualification (Section III.D.7). ESA was deemed qualified under the 2013 RFP and was contacted to provide a proposal for this Project. R-14-152 Page 2 MEASURE AA The 5-year Measure AA Project List was approved by the Board at the October 29, 2014 meeting. This project, 17-4, is part of the “Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail” portfolio and helps connect the Bay Area Ridge Trail to the Bay Trail via Stevens Creek Trail. DISCUSSION The existing bridge over a tributary to Stevens Creek is deteriorating; the wood beams are showing signs of rotting, the bridge has partially separated from its footings, and is being undermined by stream bank failure. This bridge is used by hikers, bikers, and equestrians. One- third of a mile upstream, the wet ford crosses the main channel of Stevens Creek and is used by hikers only. Both sites share a similar environmental setting. Highly erodible soils, over-steepened slopes, and stream bank failures are present around both sites, which are one-half mile from the San Andreas Fault. Construction and equipment access is limited by narrow trails. The proposed bridges will span 45-50 feet. Both sites are within the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto. The existing trail and crossing location alignments avoid, to the greatest extent possible, deep- seated landslide features that characterize this sub-watershed. Alternative bridge locations were analyzed for both sites, but were deemed costly and impractical. Constructing significant lengths of new trail does not avoid the underlying environmental conditions that constrain the project. Alternative alignments would add significant costs to the project, distance the trail from Stevens Creek, and delay implementation of the project. ESA was qualified under a Request for Proposal and Qualifications issued on July 10, 2013 for engineering and CEQA expertise. If the Board of Directors authorizes the contract, ESA will coordinate the design and permitting process with engineers and hydrologists and draft the appropriate CEQA document for the project. FISCAL IMPACT If the Board approves the General Manager’s recommendation, staff will enter into contract with ESA for an amount not-to-exceed $125,631. This contract would be funded by Measure AA. Construction costs are estimated to range from $100,000 to $200,000 depending on the type of bridge and footings required. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This proposed project, consultant, and estimated contract and project costs were reviewed by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee on December 2, 2014. The Committee authorized staff to finalize contract negotiations with ESA for the environmental analysis and bridge design work for the project for the Board’s consideration. R-14-152 Page 3 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Interested parties and adjoining owners within 300 feet of the Montebello Open Space Preserve were notified. CEQA COMPLIANCE Engineering, permitting, design, and CEQA services do not constitute a project under CEQA as it will not result in a direct physical change in the environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2)]. NEXT STEPS If the Board approves the General Manager’s recommendation, staff will enter into contract with ESA to begin the design specification process and project permitting. The existing bridge may be permitted and replaced in the fall of 2015, depending on the permits required and crew availability (it is currently anticipated that the bridges would be constructed by District crew). Contracts for construction or materials purchases over $25,000 would return to the Board for consideration. The new bridge will require additional permits and is planned for construction in 2016. Attachment 1. Powerpoint with Map and Pictures Responsible Department Head: Michael Newburn, Operations Manager Prepared by: Aaron Hébert, Contingent Project Manager December 17th, 2014 Aaron Hébert, Contingent Project Manager Stevens Creek Nature Trail Footbridges Board of Directors Attachment 1 Project Location: Stevens Creek Nature Trail Attachment 1 Existing Bridge Over Stevens Creek Tributary Attachment 1 Wet Ford Over Stevens Creek Attachment 1 R-14-158 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Contract to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Asbestos Management Group Inc., of Oakland, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $43,670, which includes the base bid amount of $39,700 plus a 10% contingency amount of $3,970, to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. SUMMARY The purpose of the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project (Project) is to complete the remaining remediation work to prepare the site for the commencement of the Mount Umunhum Interim Radar Tower Repair Project (R-14-159). The scope of work for this contract consists of the removal of lead-painted items, including roof rails, exterior window frames, door frames, stair rails, walls, as well as minor demolition work. In order to comply with safe work practices, this remediation work is necessary to prepare the site before the Mount Umunhum Interim Radar Tower Repair Project (R-14-159) can commence. The proposed structural safety repairs and improvements associated with the Mount Umunhum Interim Radar Tower Project are required to facilitate public access around the exterior base of the structure, and are the subject of a separate Agenda Item that is also scheduled for this same Board meeting. Funds to cover this remediation contract are available as part of the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget. DISCUSSION Background In 1986, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) acquired the former Almaden Air Force Station located at the summit of Mount Umunhum as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-86-20). The Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project (Public Access Project), which was approved by the Board in 2012, included an evaluation for the long-term use and management of the Radar Tower (R-12-59, R-12-91). Following a robust public outreach process, the Board approved implementation of Interim Action A: Near-term repairs and securing of the structure while considering external partnerships (R-12-104). In May 2013, the Board awarded a contract to Grossmann Design Group to prepare the contract documents for the Project (R-13-52). R-14-158 Page 2 Bidding Process The Request for Bids was issued on November 11, 2014, and was sent to contractors, subcontractors and consultants who had requested to be notified of the project, as well as five (5) builders’ exchanges. Legal notices were posted in the San Jose Mercury News and San Mateo County Times. The Invitation to Bid was also posted on the District website. A mandatory pre-bid meeting and site tour was held at the Project site on November 17, 2014 and was attended by seventeen (17) contractors. Sealed bids were due on December 2, 2014, and three (3) bids were received and opened with the results as follows: Bidder Location Total Bid Percent Difference from Engineer’s Estimate of $35,000 1. Asbestos Management Group Oakland, CA $39,700 +13.43% 2. PARC Services, Inc Livermore, CA $34,470 -1.51% 3. TKO Construction La Honda, CA $30,191 -13.74% Evaluation of the bids revealed that the two lowest bidders, TKO General Engineering and Construction, Inc., and PARC Services, Inc., did not present complete and responsive bid proposals. The TKO bid did not include similar project experience to complete the lead-hazard work and remediation services required in the contract documents. PARC’s bid proposal did not include the required non-collusion affidavit, subcontractor list, nor the Bid Guarantee. Asbestos Management Group did present a complete and responsive bid proposal and has substantial similar remediation work experience. Upon review of the bid proposal and confirmation of the contractor’s qualifications, the General Manager recommends awarding the contract to Asbestos Management Group, Inc., for a total not-to-exceed amount of $43,670, which includes the base bid amount of $39,700 plus a 10% contingency amount of $3,970. FISCAL IMPACT The District’s FY14-15 Action Plan and Budget includes $390,000 for completion of the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project, which covers costs for the repairs, remediation, cleanup and all consultant fees. The total project budget for the radar tower was set by the Board (R-12-104) at $414,885. Refer to R-14-159 for detailed description of cumulative budget impact to the total project budget, and adjustments to FY 14/15 Budget required to complete this work. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item has not been reviewed by a Board Committee. As noted above, the full Board approved the completion of interim repairs for the radar tower in 2012. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Additional notification was sent to the Mount Umunhum Interested Parties list. R-14-158 Page 3 CEQA COMPLIANCE On June 12, 2012 (R-12-59), the Board approved the adoption of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project, which included an environmental analysis of the radar tower interim repairs. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board, the General Manager would enter into a contract with Asbestos Management Group, Inc., for the completion of the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project, scheduled to begin in mid-February, 2015, once required paperwork is received. Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Department Manager Prepared by: Zachary Alexander, Planner II R-14-156 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Award Contract Amendments to Three Firms for Biological Consulting Services GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to award contract amendments to Biological Monitoring and Assessment Specialists (BioMaAS), Biosearch Associates (Biosearch), and URS Corporation (URS) for an amount not-to-exceed $50,000 (each) to provide biological consulting services to implement biological services for District projects. SUMMARY Biological consulting technical experts were required to complete numerous FY2014-15 Action Plan projects. Natural resources staff compiled a Request for Proposals and Qualifications (RFPQ) to solicit interest from several biological consultant teams that possess the required skill set, in an effort to maximize efficiency and create opportunities for multiple consultants, rather than solicit an RFP for each individual project. Three firms (Biosearch, BioMaAS, and URS) are the only firms on the prequalification list with the capability to directly perform biological consulting services for the San Francisco garter snake (SFGS). Each of these firms has a contractual limitation of $25,000. Biosearch and BioMaAs have expended nearly all of their contracts and URS is slated for use on a FY2015-16 project for which SFGS expertise is required and may expend their entire remaining contract amount. Based on their unique SFGS-related qualifications and anticipated District projects for FY2015-16 and FY2016-17, staff recommends awarding each firm a contract amendment to bring their total not to exceed contract amount to $50,000, which would be available for use through August 8, 2016 (the period of time specified in the RFPQ). This would result in a $75,000 increase in funding for these three firms over the next two years and give a total project cost of $150,000 including funds budgeted in the current fiscal year. DISCUSSION During implementation of the FY2014-15 Action Plan, the Natural Resources Department experienced a surge in requests for biological services in support of District projects. Many capital improvement projects implemented by the District have limited work windows due to sensitive status species permitting requirements. This often results in simultaneous requests for biological services that exceed staff capacity. R-14-156 Page 2 The District’s “Public Contract Bidding, Vendor, and Professional Consultant Selection, and Purchasing Policy” allows qualified consultants who submit proposals to be placed on a prequalification roster for future related work for a period of up to two years from determination of the qualification of such consultant. On July 2, 2014, in compliance with this policy, the Natural Resources Department issued a RFPQ to fourteen (14) firms to provide Biological Consulting Services. Ten proposals were received. All of the proposing firms qualified to provide one or more of the solicited biological consulting services. Some firms are best qualified to provide relatively specialized services, while others are able to provide an entire suite of services to the District. Only three firms (Biosearch, BioMaAS, and URS) on the prequalification list have the capability to perform biological consulting services for the SFGS. To date, Biosearch has already been allocated $25,000, BioMaAS has expended much of their $25,000 contract, and URS is currently slated for work in FY2015-16 which is anticipated to require much of their $25,000 total contract. Based on the unique SFGS qualifications of these three firms, the existing total not-to- exceed amount of $25,000 (each) over the next two years is likely to be insufficient. It is anticipated that work for one or more of these firms may exceed their initial contract amount this fiscal year. Staff is recommending that the Board authorize a $25,000 amendment to each, bringing the total not-to-exceed amount of each consultant contract to $50,000. However, if additional SFGS Services are not needed, or can be filled by District staff, there is no requirement for the District to spend the entire not-to-exceed amount for any of the issued contracts. With the exception of anticipated additional SFGS work, the District’s biological on-call consulting services contracts have been working well for both staff and the consultant teams. Staff has already received requests from additional firms who wish to be considered during the next RFPQ process which is planned prior to the expiration of the current 2-year prequalification list in August of 2016. At that time, District Natural Resources staff will review how the on-call services contracts and firms have been working and will make improvements as needed before awarding the next prequalification list. This process ensures that the District continues to solicit from the widest consultant pool possible, continues to obtain competitive rates and continues to develop working relationships over time with a variety of firms. FISCAL IMPACT District projects are approved annually in the District action plan and budget, and some of these require biological services that would be awarded as task orders under the contracts authorized by this Board Agenda item. No task orders are issued under these contracts unless there is an associated board authorized project for which these services are required. Language in the on- call services contracts states that: “Consultant shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order signed by District Representative.” Funding for current task orders has been approved in the FY2014-15 budget. Funding for ongoing and future projects will be proposed in the FY2015-16 and FY2016-17 budgets. The Board’s approval of the General Manager’s recommendation could result in up to $75,000 more expended on biological consulting services over the next two fiscal years, for a total expenditure of $150,000 including funds budgeted for the current fiscal year. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW There was no committee review for this agenda item. R-14-156 Page 3 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Retention of professional consultants to conduct evaluations, prepare design documents, and assist with environmental review or permitting does not constitute a project under CEQA as it will not result in a direct physical change in the environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2)]. NEXT STEPS The General Manager will amend the contracts with each of the three SFGS qualified firms for not-to-exceed contract amounts of $50,000. This will bring the total amount of maximum potential spending under these contracts to $150,000 for the three year period, including the current fiscal year. Expenditure of funds under these contracts will be limited to task orders associated with projects that are currently approved by the Board or subject to Board approval in future budget cycles. Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager Prepared by: Julie Andersen, Planner II R-14-154 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 8A AGENDA ITEM Midyear Controller’s Report and General Manager’s State of the District Report for Fiscal Year 2014-15 (April - September 2014) ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept the Controller’s Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Financial Review for the six month period of April 1, 2014 thru September 30, 2014 (Item 8b). 2. Accept the General Manager’s FY2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report and approve the following recommended adjustments (Item 8c): a. The conversion of three contingent positions to permanent status b. A two-year extension for one contingent position c. The addition of four positions to support Measure AA implementation, and one position to support the newly approved Integrated Pest Management Program d. Net-zero budget shifts SUMMARY The Action Plan and Budget Committee (ABC) and staff met on November 12, 2014 to review the FY2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report and General Manager’s State of the District Report, which includes a retrospective look at work completed on the annual Action Plan between April and September. These reports are being forwarded to the full Board for their review. As part of this review, ABC recommends that the Board approve the proposed positions and net-zero budget adjustments as further described in these reports. DISCUSSION The ABC is tasked with reviewing the proposed Annual and Midyear District Budgets to ensure fiscal responsibility and the prudent allocation of financial resources to accomplish the District’s annual Action Plan. Staff has provided a status summary of Action Plan projects and expenditures as of September 30, 2014. Key findings of the two status reports include a reduction in the total number of active projects from 96 in the Adopted Action Plan to 93 at Midyear, reflecting eleven completed projects, eleven new projects (six of which have already been approved by the Board), ten delayed projects, and three project deferrals. R-14-154 Page 2 On the budget side, property tax revenue totaled $4.8 million as of September 30, 2014, which is 14% of the adopted revenue estimate and in line with expectations for this time of year. Property tax revenue is projected to exceed the adopted estimate by approximately $184,000 or 0.5% for total projected revenue of $33.74 million at year-end. Overall, District expenditures at Midyear totaled $15.9 million, or 36% of the FY2014-15 Budget, reflecting significant savings in capital expenditures and land purchases. Several significant staffing changes are proposed as part of the Midyear Report and are summarized below. The Committee discussed these proposed changes and recommends approval by the full Board. • The following three positions are proposed to be converted from contingent to permanent status to address a permanent increase in District workload and activities: Project Manager, Community Outreach Specialist, and Real Property Assistant. • The term for the contingent Public Affairs Assistant is recommended to be extended for two more years to continue to coordinate various community events. • The addition of four new positions is proposed to accelerate and/or support Measure AA implementation. These positions would not be funded this fiscal year but recruitments could begin this winter to fill the positions by early spring. • The addition of one new position is proposed to implement the Integrated Pest Management Program, which was approved by the Board of Directors on December 10, 2014. This position would not be funded this fiscal year but recruitment could begin this winter to fill the positions by early spring. Proposed changes to the budget include several net zero shifts between Budget Categories, which require Board approval. Even with these changes, the total District budget would remain unchanged at $43.9 million. FISCAL IMPACT The position changes discussed above do not have a fiscal impact on the FY2014-15 budget and impacts to next fiscal year will be included as part of the FY2015-16 Proposed Budget. Review of the FY2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report and General Manager’s State of the District Report includes Board approval of net-zero midyear budget changes, keeping the total District budget at $43.9 million to fund the District’s Action Plan and ongoing functions for the remainder of the fiscal year. COMMITTEE REVIEW On November 12, 2014, the ABC met with the General Manager, Assistant General Managers, Department Managers, and various staff to review the proposed District FY2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report and General Manager’s State of the District Report. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. R-14-154 Page 3 CEQA COMPLIANCE This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, staff would make the recommended net-zero budget adjustments to the FY2014-15 Midyear Action Plan and Budget and begin recruitments for the new positions as early as January. Prepared by: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Contact person: Yoriko Kishimoto, Chair, Administration and Budget Committee R-14-155 Meeting 13-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 8B AGENDA ITEM Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report CONTROLLER’S RECOMMENDATION Review and accept the attached Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear Controller’s Report. SUMMARY The Controller’s Midyear Financial Review Report concludes that the Midyear revenues and expenditures are on track and consistent with the District’s long-term financial plans. DISCUSSION As part of the Midyear Action Plan and Budget Review process, the Controller prepares a Midyear Financial Report that presents the District’s balance sheet and year-to-date revenues and expenditures as of September 30. For FY2014-15, the financial results of the first six months indicate that revenues and expenditures are consistent with the District’s long-term financial plans. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Action Plan and Budget Committee reviewed the proposed FY2014-15 Midyear Controller’s report on November 12, 2014. FISCAL IMPACT Acceptance of this report has no fiscal impact. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required. R-14-155 Page 2 NEXT STEPS The Controller will continue to monitor property tax revenues and District expenditures. Attachments: 1. Midyear Financial Review Report Prepared by: Mike Foster, Controller DATE: December 1, 2014 MEMO TO: Board of Directors FROM: M. Foster, Controller SUBJECT: Mid-Year Financial Review CONTROLLER’S REPORT Attached are unaudited and summarized financial statements for the six months ended September 30, 2014. Exhibit A contains the District’s September 30 balance sheet compared to our audited position on March 31. Our cash balance decreased by $2.0 million due to the payment of $6.0 million of scheduled debt service. The District paid only $10,000 cash for land acquisitions during this six month period. The cash balance, $32.3 million, includes $3.3 million of bond reserve and endowment funds not available for general expenditure. The District’s outstanding debt of $136.3 million remains well below the statutory debt limit. The District’s cash balance and other net current assets fully fund the minimum reserve balances approved by the Board on November 25, 2014. Exhibit B shows our six month revenues compared to the same period a year ago and to the twelve month budget. This is a low period for tax revenue as the heavy April tax receipts are accrued into the prior year. Assessed valuation reports indicate that fiscal 2015 property tax income will be up some 5.9% and exceed the original budget by around $180,000 (0.5%). Income from rental property, Santa Clara County parks, interest, and other sources appears to be on track. Exhibit C displays a summary of six month spending compared to the same period last year and to the annual budget. Operating expense spending is up only 1% over the prior year and at 42% of the annual budget. Salaries and benefits are up 3%, while services and supplies are down 7%. The District spent 17% of its annual budget for non-land capital spending, compared to 15% at the same point last year. Total spending excluding land purchases and debt service was 37% of the annual budget—the same as last year and within 1% of the six month spending percentage for each of the prior seven years. So, 37-38% continues to represent the normal seasonal first half spending pattern for the District. A large portion of this year’s capital spending will be reimbursed from the proceeds of the initial tranche of Measure AA general obligation bonds, to be issued early in fiscal 2016. The outlook for District property tax revenue growth in fiscal 2016 is again favorable. Interim reports from the county assessors indicate growth in overall District assessed valuation is likely to be in the 5% to 6% range. Overall, the financial results of the first six months indicate revenues and expenditures are consistent with the District’s pre-Measure AA long-term financial plans. Expenditures are well below the level that will be needed to accomplish all of the Measure AA projects within 25-30 years. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A – Balance Sheet 2. Exhibit B – Revenues 3. Exhibit C – Expenses Prepared by: Michael Foster, Controller Contact person: Same as above sep13BS 1:11 PM12/11/2014 September 30, 2014 March 31, 2014 (Thousands)(Unaudited)(Audited) Cash & Investments $32,296 $34,331 Receivables & Prepaids $2,249 $10,383 Deferred Charges $4,023 $4,105 Net OPEB Asset $1,023 $1,004 Land $383,519 $383,509 Construction in Progress $4,710 $4,710 Structures & Improvements $14,670 $14,213 Equipment $2,357 $2,491 TOTAL ASSETS $444,847 $454,746 Accounts Payable $781 $744 Accrued Liabilities $1,773 $1,432 Land Contract Debt $2,421 $2,431 Public Notes Payable $136,318 $138,992 TOTAL LIABILITIES $141,293 $143,599 TOTAL EQUITY $303,554 $311,147 Exhibit A MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Balance Sheet sep14Rev 1:12 PM12/11/2014 (Thousands, Unaudited)Six Months Ended September 30 Percent 2014 2013 Increase Property Taxes $4,800 $4,534 6% Interest Income $96 $138 -31% Acquisition Grants $0 $0 na Development Grants $59 $313 -81% Rental Income $469 $491 -5% Gifts of Land $0 $0 na SCC Parks Income $314 $306 3% Other $97 $86 13% TOTAL REVENUE $5,834 $5,867 -1% (Thousands, Unaudited)Six Months Annual Percent Actual Budget Received Property Taxes $4,800 $33,556 14% Interest Income $96 $265 36% Acquisition Grants $0 $740 0% Development Grants $59 $884 7% Rental Income $469 $1,109 42% Gifts of Land $0 $1,500 0% SCC Parks Income $314 $313 100% Other $97 $200 48% TOTAL REVENUE $5,834 $38,567 15% Six Month Revenue vs. Prior Year Six Month Revenue vs. Annual Budget Exhibit B MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT sep14Spend 1:12 PM12/11/2014 (Thousands, Unaudited)Six Months Ended September 30 Percent 2014 2013 Increase Salaries & Benefits $6,350 $6,190 3% Services & Supplies $1,561 $1,671 -7% Operating Expense $7,912 $7,861 1% Strategic/Vision Plan $775 $297 161% Property Management $159 $124 28% Land Acquisition Expense $105 $2 4903% Capital Spending $854 $831 3% Land Acquired $10 $0 na Debt Service $6,043 $5,940 2% TOTAL SPENDING $15,857 $15,055 5% (Thousands, Unaudited)Six Months Annual Percent Actual Budget Spent Salaries & Benefits $6,350 $14,523 44% Services & Supplies $1,561 $4,127 38% Operating Expense $7,912 $18,649 42% Strategic/Vision Plan $775 $1,448 54% Property Management $159 $471 34% Land Acquisition Expense $105 $854 12% Capital Spending $854 $5,105 17% NON-LAND SPENDING $9,804 $26,527 37% Debt Service $6,043 $8,894 68% Land Acquired $10 $8,500 0% TOTAL SPENDING $15,857 $43,920 36% Six Month Spending vs. Prior Year Six Month Spending vs. Annual Budget Exhibit C MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-14-153 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 8C AGENDA ITEM Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report and Recommended Action Plan and Budget Adjustments GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Accept the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report SUMMARY This Midyear State of the District Report (Midyear Report) provides a status update as of September 30, 2014 of the current Fiscal Year Action Plan and Budget, as well as any notable changes to Key Projects and proposed Action Plan and Budget modifications for Board consideration. The addition of six new projects to date, combined with the staff resources needed to develop the Measure AA Implementation Plan, has resulted in the delay or deferral of 13 existing projects. As of September 30, operating expenses tracked within the expected range at 42% expended and capital expenditures were at 17%, however, encumbrances brought total capital commitments to 39%. No land was purchased as of September 30, however the Board approved a $1.48 million purchase soon after in October. As part of the Midyear Report, the General Manager recommends (1) converting three contingent positions that are critical to District business operations to permanent status, (2) extending one contingent position for two additional years, (3) adding four additional positions to address the needs related to Measure AA implementation and one additional position to implement the newly approved Integrated Pest Management Program, and (4) a net-zero shift of $150,000 from the Capital and the Vision Plan Budgets to the Operating Budget to address District water rights. DISCUSSION The Board of Directors adopted the FY2014-15 Action Plan and Budget at the March 26, 2014 regular meeting (Reports R-14-59 and R-14-60). This Midyear Report includes a status update of notable changes to Action Plan Key Projects (as outlined below) and a review of year-to-date expenditures as of September 30, 2014 as compared to the adopted budget. Key Projects that meet the following criteria are highlighted in this report: 1. Completed projects 2. New projects added to the Action Plan by the Board after it was adopted, as well as new projects recommended by the General Manager for addition at this time for Board consideration R-14-153 Page 2 3. Projects with delays where the completion date is moved to FY2015-16 4. Newly deferred projects 5. Projects with budget changes greater than $100,000 Part I: Action Plan Status Update The District’s FY2014-15 Action Plan was originally comprised of 96 active Key Projects (R- 14-59). The project descriptions are included in the February 26, 2014 Initial Presentation of the District’s Proposed Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2014-15 (R-14-38). Since Board adoption of the annual Action Plan and Budget, the District has completed eleven Key Projects and added six new projects to address emerging issues. To accommodate the additional workload, including unanticipated increases to project scope for existing projects, the completion dates for 13 District projects have moved out to FY2015-16 or beyond. Also of note are three projects with significant expenditure savings totaling $435,000 that will be used to offset the cost of eight new projects. Specific details regarding these changes can be found in Attachment 1. Projects potentially eligible for Measure AA are indicated by (MAA). The General Manager recommends the Board approve the Action Plan changes listed below. Completed Projects – The following eleven Key Projects have been completed as of Midyear: Capital Projects: • Administrative Office Mansard Roof Replacement • Ancient Oaks Trail • Bald Mountain Parking Area • Mindego Hill Trail (MAA) • Rebuild Pond DR05 • Site Restoration – Saratoga Gap Cabins • Upgrade Two Above Ground Fuel Tanks at Field Offices Operating Projects: • Annual Audit and Single Audit for Mt. Umunhum • Election Mapping • Outdoor Activity Docent and Volunteer Training • Volunteer Recognition Event New Projects – A total of eleven new projects have been identified for inclusion as part of the FY2014-15 Action Plan. Six of these projects have been previously approved by the Board in either open or closed session and are currently in progress. Five are being recommended by the General Manager at this time to begin implementing during the final quarter of the fiscal year when there will be some additional staff capacity freed to pursue new and much needed projects. All new project costs would be covered by savings in other projects. Board-Directed New Projects Capital Project: • Mindego Area: Demolition and Public Access (MAA) Operating Projects: • District Water Rights Evaluation R-14-153 Page 3 • Employee Compensation Guiding Principles • Lehigh Quarry Settlement • Lupin Water Diversion and Illegal Grading • Mindego Habitat Enhancement Plan Implementation General Manager-Recommended New Projects Capital Project: • Mt Umunhum Public Access Implementation: New Road Gate (MAA) Operating Projects: • Administrative Office Long-Term Facility Plan • Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan/CEQA (MAA) • Document Management System: Procurement and Implementation • Information Technology Strategic Plan Delayed Projects – The completion date for the following ten projects is proposed to be delayed by one year, from FY2014-15 to FY2015-16: Capital Projects: • Bear Creek Redwoods (BCR) Stables Site Plan (MAA) • ECdM Staging Area and Trail Improvements: Phase III/IV Oljon Trail - Design/Permitting (MAA) • Mt Um Guadalupe Creek Overlook and Bridges Planning and Design (MAA) • New Land Rental Property Transition (site improvements to rental facility) – Silva • Skyline Facility Improvements – Driveway Operating Projects: • Carbon Sequestration/Climate Change Analysis • Christmas Tree Farm New Lease • Encroachment Resolution – Gullicksen • Removal of Abandoned Vehicles • Water Agreement with Presentation Center, Bear Creek Redwoods Deferred Projects – The completion date for the following three projects has moved from FY2014-15 to FY2016-17 or beyond due to either insufficient staff capacity or a desire to more holistically evaluate staff facility needs: Capital Projects: • Skyline Facility Improvements – Shop Building • Skyline Field Office – Install Automated Gate Operating Project: • Encroachment Resolution – Kennedy Trail Projects with Budget Change Greater than $100,000 – The following four projects have budget adjustments of more than $100,000. Capital Projects: R-14-153 Page 4 • Ancient Oaks Trail Construction (savings of $160,000) • Bald Mountain Parking Area (savings of $125,000) • Demolition and Clean up of Abandoned Structures (budget reduced by $150,000) • Skyline Facility Improvements – HVAC (budget increased by $124,000) Part II.A: Year-to-Date Revenue and Expenditure Status as of September 30, 2014 The FY2014-15 Annual Budget of $43,920,271 was adopted by the Board of Directors on March 26, 2014, with a property tax revenue forecast of $33,556,000 (Report R-14-60), which includes $650,000 in Redevelopment Agency (RDA) revenue. Revenues Property tax revenues totaled $4.8 million as of September 30, 2014, which is 14% of the adopted property tax revenue estimate and includes RDA income of $300,000. Year-end property tax revenue is now projected to exceed the original forecast estimate by approximately $184,000, or 0.5%, for a revised estimate of $33,740,000. Total District Expenditures As of September 30, 2014, there were no modifications to the FY2014-15 Adopted Budget. Overall District expenditures at Midyear totaled $15.9 million, or 36% of the FY2014-15 Budget, which is consistent with recent prior year Midyear expenditures. Attachment 2 provides more detail on the FY2014-15 six-month expenditures versus the prior year FY2013-14 expenditures. A summary of FY2014-15 Midyear expenditures as compared to the FY2014-15 Midyear Budget, for the six month period from April 1 through September 30, 2014, is presented in Table 1, below, and is followed by a brief summary of expenditures, organized by key budget category. Table 1: FY2014-15 General Fund Midyear Expenditures Operating Expenditures As of September 30, 2014, operating expenditures totaled $7.9 million, or 42% of the FY2014- 15 Budget. Excluded from the operating expenditures are the one-time payments for Measure AA county election costs ($714,000), Vision Plan expenses, and other Strategic Plan-related costs. Operating expenses tracked slightly below the 6-month straight-line estimate of 50% due FY2014-15 Adopted Budget FY2014-15 Modified Budget (as of 9/30/14) FY2014-15 Midyear Actuals (4/1/14- 9/30/14) % Spent of FY2014-15 Adopted Budget Salaries and Benefits 14,522,606 14,522,606 6,350,097 44% Services and Supplies 4,126,527 4,126,527 1,561,463 38% Total Operating Expense (OPEX)18,649,133 18,649,133 7,911,560 42% Strategic Plan/Vision Plan 1,447,911 1,447,911 775,359 54% Capital (CAPEX)5,105,076 5,105,076 853,570 17% Property Mgt.470,550 470,550 158,620 34% Debt Service 8,893,601 8,893,601 6,043,126 68% Land and Assoc. Costs 9,354,000 9,354,000 115,058 1% Total Non-Operating Expense 25,271,138 25,271,138 7,945,733 31% TOTAL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES 43,920,271 43,920,271 15,857,293 36% DISTRICT EXPENDITURES R-14-153 Page 5 to savings from staff vacancies and several Public Affairs and Natural Resources projects, which are scheduled for the second half of the fiscal year. Fixed Assets and Capital Projects The District expended 17% of the Capital and Fixed Assets Budget as of September 30, 2014, however, when encumbered funds are considered, total capital project funds were 39% committed. Actual expenditures are low primarily due to the following: • Lower than anticipated costs for the Bald Mountain Parking Area (savings of 22%) and the Ancient Oaks Trail Construction (savings of 19%). • Delay in the Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repairs due to much higher than anticipated bids (0% expended). Staff reduced the project scope and re-released the bid package in November. The Project is still anticipated to be completed by the end of this fiscal year. • Vehicle and equipment purchases totaled 3% of budget in the first half of the fiscal year. However, the vehicles and associated equipment have been ordered and funds have been encumbered for payment, which is due upon receipt. Land and Associated Costs No new land was purchased during the first half of the fiscal year. However, the Board approved the following transactions during October 2014: 1. Purchase of the 60-acre Lysons property for $1.48 million as an addition to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve in partnership with Santa Clara County Parks to complete the Upper Stevens Creek Trail (Measure AA Portfolio #17), which closed escrow in November 2014. 2. Acceptance of trail easements and rights of first refusal as part of the Lehigh Quarry litigation settlement, which is also anticipated to record during the winter of FY2014-15. The Real Property Department is also working on completing land additions to Purisima Creek Redwoods and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserves and completing the proposed land exchange with Ridge Vineyards at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve this fiscal year. Part II.B: Proposed Midyear Changes to the FY2014-15 Budget Recommended Changes to Existing Positions As part of the Midyear Report, the General Manager recommends converting the following three contingent positions to permanent status: 1. Project Manager – The Operations Department Project Manager was added in FY2013- 14 to address a backlog of Operations capital projects. With the passage of Measure AA and the need to address an extensive backlog of capital repairs due to old and failing infrastructure, ongoing, fulltime project management capacity is needed. 2. Community Outreach Coordinator – As part of the Strategic Plan implementation, a Community Outreach Coordinator was added in FY2012-13 to conduct community outreach relating to the Vision Plan and the Funding Measure. The position continues to play a vital role in fulfilling the District’s long-range strategic goal of reaching diverse audiences, expanding outdoor education opportunities, and developing partnerships, a goal that the Board collectively upheld as essential over the long-term during the October R-14-153 Page 6 28, 2014 Board Retreat. The original three-year contingent position is set to end August of 2015. 3. Real Property Assistant – This position was added in FY2014-15 to address the backlog of tenant structures improvements, manage day-to-day property management issues, as well as facilitate escrow and transactional documents, and solicit and accept gifts of parcels. This position has added much needed capacity to a growing property management program that has seen a 20% increase in the number of District rental structures and the expansion of 10,000 acres of leased grazing lands since 2001. The additional capacity is needed to manage routine tenant improvement and day-to-day project management needs within the Real Property Department to reserve senior level staff capacity to address more complex real property issues, encroachments, lease negotiations, and sensitive regulatory and/or legal requirements. The General Manager also recommends a 2-year extension for the Public Affairs Assistant contingent position, which is scheduled to terminate on March 31, 2015. This position would continue to provide much needed capacity to schedule, organize, and represent the District at various community events, focusing on youth engagement, educational programming, and multicultural outreach, which is a strong area of interest for the District. New Positions With the passage of Measure AA, it is clear that the District must ramp up its resources and its project delivery capabilities to accomplish a greater number of projects both in the short term and long term to fulfill the commitments made to the public regarding greater access, new additions of protected open space lands, and resource restoration. The work to date on the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) has identified a number of obvious gaps in capacity and suggestions for adding near-term capacity to support the goal of Measure AA project delivery. Five new recruitments can be managed through the end of this fiscal year by Human Resources. Therefore, the General Manager recommends the addition of the following four new positions to jump start and support Measure AA implementation. In addition, a fifth position is recommended to begin implementation of the newly approved Integrated Pest Management Program. The addition of these five positions at Midyear would allow recruitments to begin as early as January 2015, with the expectation that the positions would be filled by May. Actual salary and benefit expenses incurred for all the positions, with the exception of the Open Space Technician, are not anticipated to begin until early FY2015-16. The Open Space Technician can be filled at a much quicker pace and there are sufficient salary savings to fund the position through the end of the current fiscal year. The five recommended new positions are as follows (please also refer to Attachment 3): Job Title: Capital Project Manager – Public Access Classification: Planner III Department: Planning This position would be responsible for implementing new public access projects for the District, focusing on Measure AA-funded projects. This much-needed additional capacity would assist with ramping up project delivery to construct additional public access improvements and open new preserve areas for recreation and outdoor education. This position would allow the District to move projects from the Measure AA “parking lot” list into the 5-year Implementation Schedule starting next fiscal year. If this position is approved, the General Manager intends to assign this position to work on the new parking area and trail R-14-153 Page 7 connections off Sears Ranch Road in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and also at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, pending formal board confirmation of those priorities. These project priorities, as well as any additional field staff capacity needed to construct, manage, and maintain the new facilities, would be brought to the full Board for review and confirmation as part of the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Action Plan and Budget Review. Job Title: Capital Project Manager – Acquisition Classification: Planner III Department: Real Property As work to date on the FOSM study has revealed, the acquisition of new lands by the District results in major impacts to existing projects, as staff capacity from various departments is pulled to assist Real Property with addressing time-sensitive issues that come with new properties. These issues include onsite contamination, hazardous debris, and dilapidated structures. As a result, project delivery has historically been impacted as projects get delayed or deferred due to the redeployment of staff resources to address acquisition opportunities, most of which, by nature, cannot be scheduled. The recommended Capital Project Manager in Real Property would be responsible for addressing site cleanups, debris removals, and demolitions, among other capital improvements, associated with new properties as these come online. This position would allow the Real Property Department to be much more fully sustainable and avoid the need to rely on other staff resources to address capital improvements associated with new lands in a timely manner. Job Title: Finance and Budget Analyst Classification: Management Analyst I/II Department: Administration The General Manager proposes to reassign the Senior Management Analyst vacant position that is currently in the Administrative Services Department to the General Manager’s Office to manage District-wide special projects, conduct high-level systems analysis, provide District-wide project management coordination, develop new and update existing District policies, and provide District-wide Measure AA project tracking and inter-departmental coordination. As part of this change, the General Manager proposes to backfill the position in the Administrative Services Department with a Finance and Budget Analyst to coordinate and develop the Annual and Midyear District Budget, including all reporting documents (i.e. budget versus actual), as well as Annual Year End Review. In addition, this position would conduct the day-to-day budget tracking for the District and be responsible for preparing the reporting documentation for the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee. Job Title: Open Space Technician Classification: Open Space Technician Department: Operations This position would be assigned to the Skyline area and assist with addressing critical repairs and improvements on new properties, as well as conducting routine maintenance on the District’s extensive trail system. This position will help offset the increased commitment of crew time to construct and subsequently maintain new capital improvement projects, including those funded through Measure AA. Adding the Open Space Technician position at this time would allow the District to take advantage of the economy of scale that is currently available through our active hiring pool. Qualified candidates can be quickly pulled from a current and active hiring pool for a final interview. This particular hiring pool, which is active through March 2015, has been well vetted, with applications reviewed, first interviews conducted, and skills assessments completed. We have hired one person from the pool to fill R-14-153 Page 8 a vacancy, and there are a number of viable applicants remaining in this pool. By taking advantage of the present opportunity, the District will be able to expediently and efficiently add capacity in the field without requiring a substantial amount of administrative time. Job Title: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program Coordinator Classification: Planner III Department: Natural Resources As discussed at the December 10, 2014 Board Meeting, the new IPM Program Coordinator is a position required to fully implement the IPM Program. This position would have day-to- day oversight of the IPM practices at the District, including: preparing the annual IPM work plan and report, coordinate staff/contractor/volunteer IPM training, implement the pesticide safety program, respond to public inquiries regarding the IPM Program, prepare required reports for the County Agricultural Commissioner, and other related IPM coordination and implementation tasks. Financial Implications to the Staffing Recommendations Converting the three contingent positions to regular positions and extending the one contingent position for an additional two years would require no budget adjustment for FY2014-15. These recommendations, however, would require funding commitments in future years. As such, staff revised the Five-Year Operating Forecast to include these recommendations, including reallocating the Project Manager expense from the Capital Budget to the Operating Budget and has determined that the conversion from contingent to regular of these three positions is sustainable within the revenues projected by the Controller. It is important to also note that a portion of the Project Manager position is expected to be charged to Measure AA capital projects. At the time of ABC review, the proposed new staff positions had not yet been fully defined, therefore staff evaluated the financial implications of adding the new positions using the Management Analyst classification as a placeholder and determined that the Operating Budget could sustain the additional costs and still remain below the OpEx Guideline. Since then, one additional position has been identified and the classifications of all five proposed positions have been defined and the costs re-evaluated with the conclusion that the costs continue to remain below the OpEx Guideline. Shifts Between Budget Categories Per the Board-approved Budget and Expenditure Authority Policy, budget changes to certain expenditure categories require Board approval. As part of this Midyear Report, the General Manager recommends approval of the following net-zero budget adjustments: 1. Shift $50,000 in Vision Plan Project savings from the Strategic Plan/Vision Plan Budget (outside of the Operating Budget) to Services and Supplies (Operating Budget) for water engineering services associated with the District Water Rights Evaluation Project. 2. Shift $100,000 from the Capital Budget to the Operating Budget for legal services associated with the District Water Rights Evaluation Project. 3. Within the Capital/Fixed Assets Budget, shift $100,000 from capital projects to computer equipment for the Document Management System and shift $10,000 from capital projects to equipment to purchase a toter to complete construction of the Mt. Umunhum Trail. The proposed Midyear changes result in a net-zero change to the total FY2014-15 Budget, which will remain at $43.9 million. Table 2 provides detail on the proposed budget adjustments. R-14-153 Page 9 Table 2: Proposed Changes to the FY2014-15 Budget Part II.C: Operating Expense (OpEx) and Capital Expense (CapEx) Guidelines Although there is a net-zero cost impact to the overall District budget, the shift of $150,000 to the Operating Budget causes it to exceed the adopted OpEx guideline by $99,000. However, the District historically spends approximately 95% of its operating budget and staff anticipates this year will be the same and will end the year with $500,000 to $1 million in OpEx savings. The FY2014-15 Proposed CapEx budget decreased $100,000 from the Adopted Budget and remains well below the 10.5% CapEx Spending Guideline. Part II.D: Hawthorn Fund No changes are recommended to the Adopted Hawthorn Fund Budget of $342,427. Midyear expenditures total 2% of the budget. Improvements to the Alpine Road rental house are anticipated to be completed by the end of the fiscal year, after which, the electrical and security systems will be installed at the historic complex. FISCAL IMPACT Board approval of the FY2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report would increase the District’s FY2014-15 Operating Budget by $150,000, which would be completely offset by a $100,000 decrease in the Capital Budget and a $50,000 decrease in the Vision Plan budget. The District’s total annual budget will remain unchanged at $43.9 million. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW FY2014-15 Adopted Budget FY2014-15 Proposed Midyear Budget FY2014-15 Midyear Actuals (4/1/14- 9/30/14) % Spent of FY2014-15 Adopted Budget Operating Expenses 221,685 221,685 6,162 3% Capital/Fixed Assets 120,742 120,742 - 0% Total 342,427 342,427 6,162 2% HAWTHORN FUND DISTRICT EXPENDITURES FY2014-15 Adopted Budget FY2014-15 Modified Budget (as of 9/30/13) FY2014-15 Proposed Changes FY2014-15 Proposed Midyear Budget Salaries and Benefits 14,522,606 14,522,606 - 14,522,606 Services and Supplies 4,126,527 4,126,527 150,000 4,276,527 Total Operating Expense (OPEX) 18,649,133 18,649,133 150,000 18,799,133 Strategic Plan/Vision Plan/Measure AA 1,447,911 1,447,911 (50,000) 1,397,911 Capital (CAPEX) 5,105,076 5,115,076 (100,000) 5,015,076 Property Mgt. 470,550 470,550 - 470,550 Debt Service 8,893,601 8,893,601 - 8,893,601 Land and Assoc. Costs 9,354,000 9,354,000 - 9,354,000 Total Non-Operating Expense 25,271,138 25,281,138 (150,000) 25,131,138 43,920,271 43,930,271 - 43,930,271 18,649,133 18,649,133 150,000 18,799,133 18,700,000 18,700,000 - 18,700,000 TOTAL OVER/(UNDER): OPEX (50,867) (50,867) 99,133 TOTAL DISTRICT TARGET: OPEX TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET (OPEX) TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET R-14-153 Page 10 The Action Plan and Budget Committee reviewed the proposed FY2014-15 Midyear State of the District Report on November 12, 2014, and recommends its approval by the full Board. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board, staff will implement the FY2014-15 Proposed Midyear Budget and Action Plan adjustments. Attachment: 1. Project Detail Pages 2. FY2013-14 Midyear Expenditures versus FY2014-15 Midyear Expenditures 3. Proposed Organizational Chart with the Recommended New Positions Responsible Department Manager: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Prepared by: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Michael Newburn, Operations Manager Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager Jane Mark, Planning Manager Shelly Lewis, Public Affairs Manager Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst, Operations Elaina Cuzick, Real Property Specialist Tina Hugg, Senior Planner Peggy Koenig, Public Affairs Specialist Amudha Sankar, Senior Administrative Assistant Contact person: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager ATTACHMENT 1: Project Detail Project Name Dept.Reason for Addition Scope Completion Date Budget District Water Rights Evaluation PL Immediate action required to address quantification and evaluation of District water rights for domestic, stockwatering, and resource preservation purposes, and to ensure compliance with SWRCB and other regulatory requirements. With the assistance of water resources consultants, more effectively identify and maintain the water resources present on District lands, and properly report its water use to the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Gregorio Creek Watermaster. Q4 FY14-15 $150,000 Employee Compensation Guiding Principles GM In March 2014, the Board directed ABC and staff work on development of Employee Compensation Guiding Principles during FY 2014-15. Research public agency compensation principles best practices, develop draft policy regarding Board philosophy for employee compensation, and discussions with ABC and the Board. Q4 FY14-15 $0 Lehigh Quarry Settlement RP Result of settlement negotiations with Lehigh Quarry. Executed 2 trail easements, 2 rights of first refusal for properties buffering PG&E Trail, and conditional grant deed to protect viewshed at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Q4 FY14-15 $0 Lupin Water Diversion and Illegal Grading DW Need to address illegal water diversion and grading encroachments on Hendrys Creek Property and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. Coordinate with Operations, Legal, Natural Resources, and General Manager's Office to protect water and natural resources. Ongoing $0 Mindego Area: Demolition and Public Access PL In order to complete implementation of public access in FY2015-16, surveys and workplans need to be completed (contracts issued) in FY2014-15. Due to biotic resource restrictions, project has narrow window of one month for implementation. If work not completed now, public access would be delayed by a year. Complete surveys for bats, woodrats, hazardous materials, and remediation plan for corral in order to complete implementation of demolition and corral clean up in FY2015-16. Q3 FY15-16 continuing into FY15-16 $39,000 New Projects - Board-Approved ATTACHMENT 1: Project Detail Project Name Dept.Reason for Addition Scope Completion Date Budget New Projects - Board-Approved Mindego Habitat Enhancement Plan Implementation NR Drying of Mindego Lake for bullfrog eradication was planned for next fiscal year but the drought provides the opportunity to complete this work early. Begin implementation of bullfrog eradication due to timing of drying of lake (for most cost-effective and biologically effective outcome). Preliminary work for $2,000; scoping additional costs for Q4 FY14-15. Q3/Q4, continuing into FY15-16 $2,000 ATTACHMENT 1: Project Detail Project Name Dept.Reason for Addition Scope Completion Date Budget Administrative Office Long-term Facility Plan PL To prepare for anticipated FOSM recommendations for a new organizational structure and increased staffing, this project would analyze and evaluate the FOSM’s findings and how they affect the current needs and challenges with staff growth and space constraints related to the existing Administrative Office facility. Compile and update previous 2009 Administrative Office facility analyses evaluating historical trends, market conditions, staffing, and projected staffing. Present analysis and potential scenarios to address these facility needs in FY2015-16 to PNR Committee. FY15-16 $0 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan/CEQA PL For economy of scale given current work on Bear Creek Stables by allowing seamless integration of Bear Creek Stables Site Plan into larger Preserve Plan to address trail connectivity and public access issues. Conduct community outreach, public meeting(s) and contract consultants to update Alma College assessment (retaining walls); update road/trails assessment; conduct pond inundation study and CEQA review. FY15-16 $20,000 Document Management System: Procurement and Implementation Admin An electronic document storage and indexing system is critical to tracking documents associated with GO Bond reporting requirements, as well as securely store historical and future District records. Phase I: Implement an electronic document imaging system to convert District documents to digital format and store them in a searchable database for easy retrieval. Phase II: Implement interface with IAFS. Q2 FY15-16 $100,000 Information Technology Strategic Plan Admin As part of the FOSM, Management Partners identified the immediate need for an IT Strategic Plan to guide the District's IT infrastructure expansion. Hire a consultant to evaluate the District's short and long term IT needs and develop a strategic plan to guide implementation. Q2 FY15-16 $25,000 Mt Umunhum Public Access Implementation: New Road Gate PL Immediate action recommended to address security issues and improve control of Mt Umunhum Road. Conduct neighbor outreach, contract gate installation and automation, long- term maintenance contract. Q4 FY14-15 $50,000 New Projects - General Manager-Recommended ATTACHMENT 1: Project Detail Project Name Dept.Reason for Change Scope New Completion Date Change to FY14-15 Budget Bear Creek Redwoods (BCR) Stables Plan PL/RP Develop BCR Stables Plan and conduct environmental review of proposed Plan to allow the District to enter into long term lease with stables tenant. Lead Department changed from Real Property to Planning. With consultant assistance, develop proposed BCR Stables Plan, (including site plan, management guidelines, and improvement standards) and complete CEQA for plan. FY 15-16 $15,000 Carbon Sequestration/ Climate Change Analysis NR Completing Rancho San Antonio Air Monitoring Report and Measure AA Implementation required more time than anticipated. Hire consultant to evaluate opportinuties for carbon sequestration on District Preserves and calculate potential carbon credits, including evaluation of future climate models. Q2 FY15-16 ($50,000) Christmas Tree Farm New Lease RP This project is delayed due to lessee ownership litigation. Develop new 25-year lease incorporating a new rental rate structure and management guidelines. Q2 FY15-16 $0 ECdM Staging Area and Trail Improvements (Phase III/IV Oljon Trail - Design/Permitting) PL The grading permit process has been delayed a year. Federal, State, and local permits will still be sought for the stream crossing portions of the project. Design work and permitting with San Mateo County for the trail construction, and permitting with Federal, State, and Local agencies for stream crossing permits to cleanup a filled stream and install a culvert and puncheon. Trail Implementation deferred to FY16-17. Phase III = FY15-16 ($53,000) Encroachment Resolution - Gullicksen RP Santa Clara County Courts lawsuit delayed. Saratoga Gap - Gullicksen - monitor remediation site as part of Santa Clara lawsuit. FY 15-16 $0 Delayed Projects ATTACHMENT 1: Project Detail Project Name Dept.Reason for Change Scope New Completion Date Change to FY14-15 Budget Delayed Projects Mt Um Guadalupe Creek Overlook and Bridges Planning and Design PL Coordinating the timing of the design and permitting work with the Mt Um trail construction work to reach all three bridge locations. Design for safe viewing platform at the overlook with railings, seating, and interpretation, and design of trail bridges over Guadalupe Creek as part of the Mt. Umunhum Trail. Design would be used for permitting and construction of three bridges which may be pre-fab or hand-built. Materials and bridges (if pre-fab would be flow in by helicopter. FY 15-16 $25,000 New Land Rental Property Transition - Silva RP Delay in County permitting for road and water system improvements to remove red tag. Roof & Deck improvements dependent on red tag removal. Planning - Continue to make road and water improvements for county fire to remove red tag. Project budget increase of $51,000 will be covered with savings in other project budgets. This increase was approved by the Board in September 2014. Q1 FY15-16 $51,000 Removal of Abandoned Vehicles OPS Further environmental review of the impacts of removing vehicles needs to be completed. Complete environmental review of project by Q4 FY14-15 with removal anticipated in FY15-16. FY 15-16 $0 Skyline Facility Improvements - Driveway OPS Project is delayed to focus on completion of other Skyline field office projects and to have construction scheduled for the dry season. Repave driveway to improve road surface. Q4 FY 15-16 ($40,000) Water Agreement with Presentation Center, Bear Creek Redwoods RP Focus on settlement of Chiocchi litigation prior to completing negotiations for water agreement amendment with Presentation Center. Relocate portion of water line w/the Presentation Center & abandon unstable portion. Amend Alma Water Agreement w/Presentation Center to address maintenance and repair based on proportional use of system. FY15-16 $0 ATTACHMENT 1: Project Detail Project Name Dept.Reason for Change Scope New Completion Date Change to FY14-15 Budget Encroachment Resolution - Kennedy Trail RP Delayed due to staff capacity.Resolve fence dispute at Kennedy Trail in Sierra Azul. TBD ($25,000) Skyline Facility Improvements - Shop Building OPS Shelter and awning are more expensive than originally anticipated. Staff will conduct an overall evaluation of facility needs. Funds budgeted for this project have been transferred to Skyline HVAC project. Evaluate, design, and start permitting process for equipment shelter and shop awning. TBD ($90,000) Skyline Field Office - Install Automated Gate OPS Staff will conduct an overall evaluation of facility needs. Funds budgeted for this project have been transferred to Skyline HVAC project. Contract for the installation of an automatic gate with communications link to SFO TBD ($60,000) Deferred Projects ATTACHMENT 1: Project Detail Project Name Dept.Reason for Change Scope Change to FY14-15 Budget New FY14-15 Budget Ancient Oaks Trail Construction PL Materials were less expensive than anticipated and original budget included field staff time which will be reimbursed by POST. Complete design, permitting, and construction of Ancient Oaks connector trail. ($160,000)$90,000 Bald Mountain Parking Area PL Construction contract significantly under estimate; landscaping done by volunteers; government contract savings for restroom purchase. Construct parking lot at Bald Mountain for public access and to serve as the trailhead for the Summit Trail. ($125,000)$535,000 Demolition and Clean up of Abandoned Structures [Foothills Area] OPS Project budget and scope are being reduced to focus on other capital projects. Project savings will be used to fund other Operations projects, such as the Skyline HVAC system. Evaluate and choose highest priority structures for demolition in the Foothills area. Contract out demolition and clean up of listed structures. Only buildings deemed not to have historic value will be included in this project. ($150,000)$450,000 Skyline Facility Improvements - HVAC OPS Higher bids and architectural costs than projected due to the recovering economy. Funds will be used from Abandoned Structures project savings. Install new HVAC system at ground level and roof over well that houses current HVAC on the office roof. $124,000 $310,000 Projects with Budget Change Greater than $100,000 ATTACHMENT 2: FY2013-14 vs. FY2014-15 Midyear Expenditures DISTRICT EXPENDITURES FY2013-14 Adopted Budget FY2013-14 Midyear Actuals (4/1/13- 9/30/13) % Spent of FY2013-14 Modified Budget FY2014-15 Adopted Budget FY2014-15 Modified Budget (as of 9/30/14) FY2014-15 Midyear Actuals (4/1/14- 9/30/14) % Spent of FY2014-15 Modified Budget Salaries and Benefits 13,586,721 6,190,393 46%14,522,606 14,522,606 6,350,097 44% Services and Supplies 3,873,279 1,670,960 43%4,126,527 4,126,527 1,561,463 38% Total Operating Expense (OPEX)17,460,000 7,861,353 45%18,649,133 18,649,133 7,911,560 42% Strategic Plan/Vision Plan/Measure AA 850,900 297,311 35%1,447,911 1,447,911 775,359 54% Capital (CAPEX)5,496,726 830,538 15%5,105,076 5,105,076 853,570 17% Property Mgt.324,822 123,849 38%470,550 470,550 158,620 34% Debt Service 8,874,965 5,940,119 67%8,893,601 8,893,601 6,043,126 68% Land and Assoc. Costs 7,999,000 2,113 0%9,354,000 9,354,000 115,058 1% Total Non-Operating Expense 23,546,413 7,193,930 31%25,271,138 25,271,138 7,945,733 31% 41,006,413 15,055,284 37%43,920,271 43,920,271 15,857,293 36%TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET VACANTOST BOARD OF DIRECTORS Sheryl Schaffner General Counsel Hilary StevensonAsst. General Counsel Mike Foster Controller Steve Abbors General Manager Ana Ruiz Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse Assistant General Manager Maria SoriaExecutive Assistant Jennifer WoodworthDistrict Clerk PLANNING Jane Mark, Manager REAL PROPERTY Mike Williams, Manager ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Kate Drayson, Manager PUBLIC AFFAIRS Shelly Lewis, Manager Gloria IsonAdministrative Assistant Benny HsiehIT Administrator VACANTManagement Analyst Andrew TaylorAccountant Owen SterzlIT Technician Warren ChanSr. Accounting Technician Michelle KneierAccounting Technician Elaina CuzickReal Property Specialist Allen IshibashiReal Property Specialist Elish RyanPlanner III Jean ChungReal Property Assistant Amanda KimMedia Comm.Supervisor Jenny GibbonsAdminstrative Assistant Paul McKowanVolunteer Program Manager Renee FitzsimonsDocent Program Manager Peggy KoenigPublic Affairs Specialist Julie AmatoCommunity Outreach Specialist Cydney BieberWeb Administrator Jennifer WilliamsPA Program Coordinator Ellen GartsideVolunteer Program Lead OPERATIONS Michael Newburn, Manager NATURAL RESOURCES Kirk Lennington, Manager HUMAN RESOURCES Candice Basnight, Supervisor VACANTHR Management Analyst I Lisa BeaulieuHR Technician Pamela MullenHR Management Analyst II April FuniestasTraining & Safety Specialist Matt BaldzikowskiPlanner III Cindy RoesslerSr. Resource Mgmt. Specialist Christina YunkerResource Mgmt. Specialist I VACANTResource Mgmt. Specialist II Clayton KoopmanResource Mgmt. Specialist I VACANTNatural Resources Intern Julie AndersenPlanner II Tom LaustenArea SuperintendentFoothills Brian MaloneArea SuperintendentSkyline Tina HuggSenior Planner Meredith ManningSenior Planner Casey HiattGIS Adminstrator Michele ChildsGIS Technician Jon MontgomeryGIS Intern Gina CoonyPlanner III/Project Manager Lisa BankoshPlanner III Gretchen LaustsenPlanner II VACANTPlanner I Brendan DowningSupervising RangerSat - Wed Stan HooperMaint/Construction& Resource Sup. Mike PerezSupervising RangerWed - Sun Craig BeckmanMaint/Construction& Resource Sup. Brad PenningtonSupervising RangerSat - Wed Jim MortMaint/Construction& Resource Sup. Chris BarresiSupervising RangerWed - Sun Michael BankoshMaint/Construction& Resource Sup. Frances ReneauRanger Steve GibbonsRanger John LloydRanger Andrew VerbruggeRanger Loro PatersonRanger Dennis HeimerRanger Alex HapkeRanger Brad PenningtonRanger VACANTRanger Marianne ChanceRanger Steve DavisonOST Rich HoppOST Rick ParryLead OST Brennon McKibbinOST Brendan DolanLead OST Eric StantonEMO Scott CotterelOST Grant Kern EMO Steve ReedOST Ken BolleEMOJeff SmithRanger Ken MillerRanger Elisa StantonRanger Kristin JohnsonRanger Tracy HammondRanger Peter CookRanger VACANTRanger Kerry CarlsonRanger Anthony CorreiaRanger Greg SmutnakRanger Ignacio ZavalaOST Sal CermenoOST Vince HernandezLead OST Warren JenkinsOST Michael GormanEMO Amanda Mills OST Brian FairOST Don MackessyLead OST Cody FickesOST Holden NealEMO Steve NeighborsOST Arline AbarrAdministrative Assistant PUBLIC Zachary AlexanderPlanner II Lupe HernandezAdministrative Assistant Jeannie BuscagliaAdminstrative Assistant Sue VoissAdministrative Assistant Gordon BaillieManagement Analyst II Michael JurichManagement Analyst II Aaron HebertProject Manager Modified/Light Duty Staff Carmen LauPublic Affairs Assistant Jaime VillarrealFarm MW December 11, 2014Updated: Jennifer KavanaghAdministrative Assistant Admudha SankarSr. Administrative Assistant Leslie WrightAdministrative Assistant Raymond YuenIT Intern VACANTCapital Project Manager VACANTCapital Project Manager VACANTIPM Coordinator VACANTSr. Management Analyst LEGEND New Proposed Staff Additions R-14-161 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 9 AGENDA ITEM Revisions to Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Policy DISTRICT CONTROLLER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed revisions to the Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Board Policy. SUMMARY This report outlines proposed revisions to the District’s Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Policy to increase capitalization thresholds, streamline the calculation of depreciation, and reduce the accounting entries for asset disposals and retirements. DISCUSSION As the District has grown in size over the years, the complexity of its financial operations has also increased, and the recent passage of Measure AA will add to the complexity. The District Controller recommends the Board of Directors approve revisions to the Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Policy to strengthen the District’s financial management practices. The District’s auditor, Chavan & Associates, has recommended that the District re-evaluate its capitalization threshold, which is currently at $10,000, given the value of the District’s assets and its annual budget. Similar agencies typically have a capitalization threshold of $25,000 or more. The proposed policy revisions (Attachment 1) would change the District’s capitalization threshold to $25,000 for vehicles and equipment and $50,000 for structures and infrastructure. Attachment 2 provides a summary of the proposed Board policy changes and Attachment 3 provides capital asset definitions. FISCAL IMPACT The policy changes discussed in this report would have no fiscal impact. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Action Plan and Budget Committee reviewed and expressed support for the policy changes on November 18, 2014. R-14-161 Page 2 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. No additional notice is necessary. CEQA COMPLIANCE No compliance is required as this action is not a project under CEQA. NEXT STEPS Following Board approval of the recommended policy changes, the General Manager will implement the two policies. Attachment: 1. Proposed Revisions to the Capital Expenditures and Depreciable Fixed Assets Policy 2. Summary of Proposed Capitalization Policy Changes 3. Capital Assets Definitions Prepared by: Michael Foster, Controller Andrew Taylor, Accountant Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Contact persons: Michael Foster, Controller Andrew Taylor, Accountant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Capital Expenditure and Depreciable Fixed Assets (CapEx) Guideline and Calculation Policy 3.05 Chapter 3 – Fiscal Management Effective Date: 3/27/02 Revised Date: 11/13/13 12/10/14 Prior Versions: 3/27/02, 3/23/05, 12/8/10, 11/13/13 Board Policy 3.05 Page 1 of 6 I. PART I: CAPITAL EXPENDITUREAND FIXED ASSETS: A cCapital expenditure assetsis are defined as a major, nonrecurring expenditurefixed assets such as land, buildings, and equipment with a useful life of greater than one year and are classified as follows: that exceeds $10,000 and includes one or more of the following: 1. Land - Land and permanent easements, either purchased or donated, with a value greater than $1 are non-depreciable capital assets. 2. Structures and Structure Improvements - Land improvements, infrastructure, buildings, other structures, and leasehold , which are purchased, constructed, or received as a donation, with an estimated total cost or fair market value greater than $50,000, are depreciable assets. 3. Infrastructure - Infrastructure assets are long-lived fixed assets with a value greater than $50,000 that are normally stationary in nature and can be preserved for a number of years significantly greater than most fixed assets. Infrastructure assets are capitalized and depreciated over the remaining useful life of the asset. Examples of infrastructure assets include roads, bridges, trail systems, tunnels, drainage systems, water and sewer systems, dams, and parking lots. 4. Equipment - Machinery, equipment, and fixtures, either purchased or received as a donation with a cost or fair market value greater than $25,000, are depreciable assets. 5. Vehicles - Vehicles, either purchased or received as a donation with a cost or fair market value greater than $25,000, and include the basic vehicle itself and any added components that are permanently affixed, such as a truck body (used for storage and added to the cab and frame) or emergency vehicle equipment, to which customize the vehicle prior to the in- service date. 6. Projects which extend the useful life or materially increase the capacity of an existing capital asset with a value greater than $25,000 for machinery, equipment, fixtures and vehicles, or $50,000 for land, improvements, infrastructure and buildings, are capitalized and depreciated over the remaining useful life of the asset. ATTACHMENT 1 Board Policy 3.05 Page 2 of 6 The foregoing represents a general framework and is not intended to be exhaustive. The final determination for capitalization issues shall be made in consultation with the District Controller and external auditor. II. DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION For the purposes of presentation in the District’s financial statements, capital assets will be depreciated/amortized over their useful lives based on the following categories: Vehicles 5 years Software 5 to 10 years Equipment/Fixtures 5 to 20 years Public Access Infrastructure 20 to 50 years Structures/Improvements 50 years PART II: CAPITAL EXPENDITURES: 1. A capital expenditure is defined as a major, nonrecurring expenditure for a new fixed asset or to add to the value of an existing fixed asset, as defined in Part I above. Such expenditures include: a. Any construction of a new facility (e.g. a public building, trails and roads, staging area, or the like) or an addition to, or extension of, such a facility. b. Any demolition of structures or facilities to eliminate environmental, health, and safety hazards or to prepare a site for future public access. c. A nonrecurring rehabilitation (i.e. something which is infrequent and would not be considered annual or recurrent maintenance) or major repair of all or part of a facility, building, or its grounds. d. Any planning, feasibility, engineering, or design study related to an individual capital expenditure project or to a program that is implemented through individual capital expenditure projects. 2. The District’s cCapital expenditures Programs include the following: a. Public Access Facilities: Capital expenditures that include such items as structures, trails and roads, staging areas, signage, and fencing on the District’s preserves. b. Planning Projects: Master Plans, Resource Management Plans, and resource inventories and studies used to prepare such plans. c. Unanticipated Capital expenditures: Improvements that may be necessary for properties acquired during the next fiscal year, or for emergency projects (demolitions, barriers, signs, etc.). The Unanticipated Capital expenditures line-item budget for the Board Policy 3.05 Page 3 of 6 total of unanticipated projects is $25,000 per year. The cost of an individual unanticipated project, such as work necessary to solve an emergency such as landslide, fire damage, hazard abatement, etc., those described in (3)(b) below does not have to meet the ordinary $1025,000 CIP threshold. d. Staff Facilities: Capital improvements to District offices, maintenance, and operations facilities. e. Land Improvements: Improvements that may be necessary for newly acquired property., such as: Examples of improvements: - Gates, fences or other barriers necessary to secure the property - Initial signage - Demolition of structures and removal of debris or abandoned vehicles that are clearly visible from a public right-of-way or within an area open for public access, and which constitute an attractive nuisance and/or have been identified in the Board report for immediate action - Removal of hazardous materials. (However, if the work meets the exclusion from the CapEx project criteria in (3)(a)(4), belowis for known pre-existing conditions on the land that require immediate work or repair, for example, remediation includes environmental, contamination, hazard, as soon as the land is purchased and may be reflected in a below market purchase price are to be included as part of the land cost, itand would not become a part of a Capital expenditure Project.) - Eliminate a hazard that is critical to public safety within an area open for public access (i.e.: abatements) 3. Items Land and Associated CostsExcluded from the Capital expenditure Guideline calculation: The following items are cCosts directly related to land purchases should be classified as Land and Associated Costs. This includes: (i.e. i. tThe cost of land): ii. All non-recurring costs incurred to purchase land are to be included in either the cost of the land (i.e. appraisal fees, site engineering, legal fees, title insurance, acquisition consultant), due diligence (i.e. environmental assessments) and/or demolition work. a. Demolition costs • Include in cost of land: iIf the demolition work is included in the contractual agreement as a requirement to purchase the land, then the demolition costs are to be included as part of the cost of land. • Exclude from cost of land: iIf the demolition work is not considered immediately necessary as part of the purchase., then Tthese costs are to Board Policy 3.05 Page 4 of 6 be included as a capital project and subject to this CapEx Guideline and calculation.. b. All project costs following the land purchase and outside the contractual purchase agreement are to be charged to the CapExcapital budget. c. Recurring costs are to be charged to Operating Expenses (i.e. Insurance). d. Known pre-existing conditions on the land that require immediate work or repair (i.e. remediation includes environmental, contamination, hazard) as soon as the land is purchased, and may be reflected in a below market purchase price, are to be included as part of the land cost. e. Expenses incurred as part of the Property Management Program. a. 4. Large Unanticipated Capital expenditures (Emergency Projects): Work necessary to solve an emergency such as landslide, fire damage, hazard abatement, etc. that cannot wait for normal budget cycle. (This may cause funding in other project categories to be deferred). Due to potential material and unforeseen costs, a request for exception to the CapEx Guideline will be completed on a case-by-case basis. Spending impacts to the current budget by Emergency projects will be evaluated by the General Manager and the District Controller, and if necessary referred to the Administration and Budget Committee. The General Manager and District Controller reserve the right to re- budget the remainder of the year to offset the cost impacts of any unplanned emergency projects. Examples of emergency projects: - Protection of a natural or cultural resource in immediate danger of irreversible damage if no action is taken, where the scope of work meets the capital project criteria, such as major repair to a stream bank where erosion is impacting salmonid habitat. - Repair storm damage to roads that are required for emergency access and evacuation of residents, where the scope of work meets the capital project criteria. PART II: FIXED ASSETS: 1. Included in the District’s Capital expenditure and Fixed Asset Guideline Calculation are four (4) categories of depreciable assets (see 1a through 15, below). A fixed asset is capitalized when it is valued at $5,000 or more and has a useful life of (1) year or more and provides benefits throughout that period. (See definitions stated in the Administrative Policy, Capitalization Policy For District Fixed Assets, Policy AP-05-03, dated 8/1/05, Exhibit 2b-2). Board Policy 3.05 Page 5 of 6 a. Equipment: Equipment includes costs of equipment, office equipment, machinery, furniture, fixtures and similar items. b. Vehicles: Vehicles include the basic vehicle itself and any added components that are permanently affixed, such as a truck body (used for storage and added to the cab and frame) or emergency vehicle equipment, which customize the vehicle prior to the in-service date. c. Structures and Structure Improvements: Structures are permanent buildings that house persons or personal property. Structure Improvements are long-lived attachments to buildings that significantly increase the building’s life, usefulness, or value and cannot be moved or separated from the building. Structure Improvements include assets such as central air conditioning, heating, and fire alarm systems. Structure and Structure Improvements also include the cost of construction (including all charges applicable to the building, such as costs that can be capitalized at and subsequent to the date of asset acquisition). - Structure Component Units are parts of a structure that, when replaced, prolong the life of that existing structural asset or increase its value. The new Structure Component Unit will be capitalized separately, and the old component unit (subsequent to original construction) will be removed from the fixed asset and/or property report. Examples include HVAC, plumbing and sprinkler systems. d. Infrastructure: Infrastructure assets are long-lived fixed assets that normally are stationary in nature and can be preserved for a number of years significantly greater than most fixed assets. Examples of infrastructure assets include roads, bridges, trail systems, tunnels, drainage systems, water and sewer systems, dams, and parking lots. The combined expenditure for the District’s Capital expenditure projects and depreciable fixed assets are subject to the limit of 10.5% of property tax revenue based on a 5-year moving average commencing April 1, 2011. PART III: Calculation of the 5-year moving average plus an example: a. Capital expenditure and Fixed Asset spending is limited up to 10.5% of the Property tax revenue (based on a 5-year moving average). - The 5-year average calculation requires a (1) year forecast of future projects, rather than calculating the averaging of project spending on the past 5 or 10 years. - Use of this new CapEx Guideline commences in FY2011-12 (using FY2010-11 actuals),increasing (1) year each year until FY2013-14 where a full 5-year Board Policy 3.05 Page 6 of 6 average is calculated (i.e.: at 4/1/2014: use (4) years of past Actuals plus (1) year of forecast (the immediate upcoming year)). See CapEx Example attached. b. Grant income and donations can be used to offset CapEx spending. ATTACHMENT 2 The current policy document in force (Capital Expenditure and Depreciable Fixed Asset /CapEx Guideline and Calculation) needs to be updated in light of the passage of Measure AA. The essence is not to define what is a “capital project,” but rather to establish thresholds for which the District will include an expenditure on its balance sheet as a depreciable fixed asset for purposes of its government-wide financial statements. Capitalization/Depreciable Fixed Assets Category Current Policy Proposed Land (non-depreciable) $5,000 $1 Equipment $5,000 $25,000 (machinery, furniture, fixtures, etc) Vehicles $5,000 $25,000 (patrol, maintenance and administrative office) Structures & Improvements $5,000 $50,000 ( buildings, garages, storage areas and related HVAC, heating and other systems) Infrastructure $5,000 $50,000 (trails, bridges, drainage, parking areas, roads, etc) The proposed changes are based on input from the external auditors, as well as a review of peer agencies, including East Bay Regional Park District. In particular, the District’s external auditor has endorsed these levels as being more consistent with similar agencies given the overall size of the District’s balance sheet (in excess of $400 million). The primary effect of this change will be to reduce the number of assets that the District tracks for accounting purposes, however, physical tracking of the assets will be maintained. It will streamline the calculation of depreciation and reduce the accounting entries for asset disposals and retirements. ATTACHMENT 3 Summary Statement Up to present, the District has been guided by the Capital Expenditure and Depreciable (CapEx) document first approved by the Board on March 27, 2002 and subsequently amended in March 2005 and December 2010. Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) dictate that the District capitalize certain expenditures on its balance sheet (land, equipment, buildings, etc) as an asset. Under the same principles, a portion of the value of those assets is recorded as a depreciation expense over the estimated useful life of the particular asset (land being the exception and not subject to depreciation). With the passage of Measure AA, the District needs to define a more formal policy regarding Capital Assets of the District. The purpose of this update is to establish capitalization thresholds which are more consistent with the scale of the District’s balance sheet and moreover, to ensure proper and accurate accounting treatment under GAAP as it relates to recording capital (fixed) assets in the District’s accounts. Capital Assets Definition Assets with the following threshold values, and a useful life of greater than one year will be capitalized: • Land and permanent easements, either purchased or received as a donation with a value of greater than $1 are non-depreciable capital assets. • Land improvements, infrastructure, buildings, other structures and leasehold improvements which are either purchased, constructed or received as a donation, with an estimated total cost or fair market value, greater than $50,000 are depreciable assets. • Machinery, equipment, fixtures and vehicles, either purchased or received as a donation with a cost or fair market value greater than $25,000 are depreciable assets. • Projects which extend the useful life or materially increase the capacity of an existing capital asset, with a value greater than $25,000 for machinery, equipment, fixtures and vehicles, or $50,000 for land, improvements, infrastructure and buildings, are capitalized and depreciated over the remaining useful life of the asset. Capitalized Costs Capitalized costs shall include those costs for placing the asset into service as prescribed by GAAP: ATTACHMENT 3 • In the case of purchased assets, this shall included purchase costs, taxes, installation, and delivery/freight charges • For constructed assets, costs include design, engineering (geotechnical, soils, structural, etc), permits, construction and other related costs. The overriding determination for capitalization of costs shall be conformity with US GAAP and made in consultation with the District Controller and external auditor. Depreciation & Amortization For the purposes of presentation in the District’s financial statements, capital assets will be depreciated/amortized over their useful lives based on the following categories: • Vehicles 5 years • Software 5 to 10 years • Equipment/Fixtures 5 to 20 years • Public Access Infrastructure 20 to 50 years • Structures/improvements 50 years Disposal of Capital Assets Once an asset is either disposed of or no longer in service, it should no longer be maintained in the District’s accounting system. The procedure and methods for disposing those assets deemed to be obsolete or no longer needed shall be subject to a separate policy as approved by the General Manager and/or Board. Departments are required to report changes (disposals, damages, impairments, casualty loss, etc) for assets under their control to the District Controller and Accounting. Annual Inventory The Administrative Services Department performs an annual inventory as part of procedures to safeguard the District’s assets. Irrespective of cost, items such as laptops, cameras, printers, tools and other highly portable devices will be tracked as inventory. R-14-159 Meeting 14-35 December 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM 10 AGENDA ITEM Contract for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Ashron Construction and Restoration, Inc., of Milpitas, CA, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $419,733, which includes a five percent contingency amount of no more than $20,000, to complete the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project located at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. SUMMARY The purpose of the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project (Project) is to complete structural and safety repairs and improvements to facilitate public access around the exterior base of the structure. The Project consists of code-required repairs to bring the structure up to “collapse prevention” as well as safety improvements, including sealing of all exterior wall openings, sealing of all interior floor and shaft openings, and replacement and upgrades to roof and stair railings. Funds to cover this repair contract are available as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 Budget. Implementation of this contract would follow the remediation contract that is the subject of a separate Agenda Item as part of this same Board meeting. DISCUSSION Background In 1986, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) acquired the former Almaden Air Force Station located at the summit of Mount Umunhum as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-86-20). The Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project (Public Access Project), which was approved by the Board in 2012, included an evaluation for the long-term use and management of the Radar Tower (R-12-59, R-12-91). Following a robust public outreach process, the Board approved implementation of Interim Action A: Near-term repairs and securing of the structure while considering external partnerships (R-12-104). In May 2013, the Board awarded a contract to Grossmann Design Group to prepare the contract documents for the Project (R-13-52). The project was originally bid in summer 2014, and the bids received were substantially higher than the engineers estimate; as a result, the Board approved rejection of all bids on September 24, 2014 (R-14-115). Bidding Process The Interim Repairs Project was originally released for bid on July 15, 2014. Sealed bids were submitted and reviewed on August 12, 2014. Two bids were received: one bid was deemed non- R-14-159 Page 2 responsive due to information missing on the Bid Form; the other bid from Joseph Murphy Construction for $763,425 was deemed the lowest responsive bid. The bid amount was $153% higher than the engineer’s estimate of $300,000. Staff evaluated the bid submitted by Joseph Murphy Construction and determined that the following key factors contributed to the high bid: • Robust construction market o Higher than normal cost escalation rate o Contactors being more selective and bidding more profitable, larger projects • Project constraints o Remoteness of site o Lack of available utilities o Relatively small project size • Disproportionately high bid items o Cost to clean structure of debris, animal feces, and dead birds o Cost to remediate and conduct safe lead work practices (site preparation work) Staff evaluated cost saving opportunities, including modifying the project scope and bid packages. The following changes were incorporated into the revised bid documents: • Scope modifications o Reduced quantity of first floor concrete infill to just the openings on the east side o Reduced number of openings in-filled with metal panels to just those that are currently inadequately sealed to eight (8) windows and one large door o Eliminated demolition of catch basin & storm drain • Bid package modifications o Bid cleanup work separately (R-14-158). o Bid remediation / safe lead work practice scope of work separately (R-14-158) These modifications were incorporated into the revised bid package for the Interim Radar Tower Repair Project. A separate Request for Proposals was issued for the building cleanup and a separate bid package was issued for the Radar Tower Interior Remediation Project. The revised Request for Bids for the repair work was issued on November 11, 2014, and was sent to contractors, subcontractors and consultants who had requested to be notified of the project, as well as five (5) builders’ exchanges. Legal notices were posted in the San Jose Mercury News and San Mateo County Times. The Invitation to Bid was also posted on the District website. A mandatory pre-bid meeting and site tour was held on November 17, 2014, and was attended by seventeen (17) contractors. Sealed bids were due on December 2, 2014, and one (1) bid was received and opened with the results as follows: Bidder Location Total Base Bid Percent Difference from Engineer’s Estimate of $220,000 Ashron Construction and Restoration , Inc. Milpitas, CA $469,733 +113% Bid Analysis Evaluation of the bids revealed that Ashron Construction and Restoration, Inc., (Ashron) presented a complete and responsive bid package. Staff contacted other public agencies who had R-14-159 Page 3 worked with Ashron to confirm their qualifications and experience. Ashron has successfully completed similar projects for other public agencies, and is deemed to be a professional, responsive and safety-conscious contractor. Ashron’s bid stipulated a 120-day project schedule, which is 30-days greater than staff had anticipated, and would result in a portion of the project being completed in FY2015-16. Ashron proposes to self-perform all work, and is therefore amenable to working with the District to value-engineer the project scope to better achieve the District’s budget goals to bring the total contract amount closer to the engineer’s estimate. Through this effort, staff proposes to reduce the Project cost by $50,000 to $100,000, for a Project construction cost between $369,733 and $419,733. FISCAL IMPACT The District’s FY2014-15 Action Plan and Budget includes $390,000 for completion of the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project. The total project budget was set by the Board (R-12-104) at $414,885. The first round of bidding resulted in a bid of $763,425, which was $416,450 over the Board-approved total project budget. As a result of the modifications made in the revised bid package, where scope was reduced and separate bid packages released for repairs, remediation and cleanup, the construction cost was reduced by $245,442 (refer to Table 1). Approximately $151,000 of this savings is attributed to bidding out the remediation and cleanup work separately from the repair project. The remaining $94,442 in savings was derived by reducing the repair project scope of work. Table 1 Original Budget Budget 1st Round of Bids Budget 2nd Round of Bids Proposed Budget Low Proposed Budget High Professional Consultants $114,885 $67,910 $67,910 $67,910 $67,910 Added cost to revise bid docs $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Inspections $7,500 $15,000 Construction - Total Scope $300,000 $763,425 Repairs $469,733 $369,733 $419,733 Remediation $40,000 $36,000 $40,000 Cleanup $8,250 $8,250 $8,250 TOTAL PROJECT COST $414,885 $831,335 $600,893 $504,393 $565,893 Amount over original budget $416,450 $186,008 $89,508 $151,008 The General Manager proposes to work with Ashron to value-engineer the repairs in an effort to reduce the base bid by $50,000 to $100,000. If successful, additional project funds needed to complete the repair project beyond the original Board-approved project budget of $414,885 may range between $89,508 and $151,043. Assuming the project construction cost is reduced to $419,733, staff estimates that the project will require an additional $40,000 in FY2014-15, with the remainder of the final negotiated additional cost included in the FY2015-16 Budget. Staff has identified project budget savings in the FY2014-15 Midyear Budget to cover the additional cost through the end of this fiscal year. R-14-159 Page 4 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Committee. As noted above, the full Board approved the completion of interim repairs for the radar tower in 2012. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. Additional notification was sent to the Mount Umunhum Interested Parties list. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE On June 12, 2012 (R-12-59), the Board approved the adoption of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project, which included an environmental analysis of the radar tower interim repairs. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the General Manager will direct staff to negotiate a not-to-exceed contract amount no greater than $419,733. The General Manager will issue a Board FYI summarizing the results of the negotiations, the final contract amount, and the fiscal impacts. Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Gina Coony, Open Space Planner III DATE: December 17, 2014 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: Financial & Operational Sustainability Model Study Update _____________________________________________________________________________ This memorandum provides an update on the status of the Financial & Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) Study. Since late September, our consultant team, Management Partners, has been engaging with staff, hearing your thoughts and ideas, as well as reviewing information that emerged from the research and learning phase of their engagement. Employees have provided substantial and thoughtful input into the FOSM thus far. In November, Management Partners provided an update to the Board of Directors that identified a number of organizational challenges and potential implementation strategies that will need to be carefully considered. In addition to the resource demands anticipated with the roll-out of Measure AA, Management Partners identified important business and management information systems that are needed for us to effectively deliver on the promise of Measure AA, enable our current work program, and grow our organization in a manner that is sustainable. Our goal is to develop viable models for a sustainable, effective and efficient organization that supports the District collaborative culture and to do so will require more time than originally anticipated. At the start of this project we had planned to have recommendations regarding organizational structure and staffing strategies ready to present to the Board in December. It is clear to me that we need additional time to carefully consider options and how to phase in changes within the current organization. The Executive Team has recently reviewed Management Partners’ progress on models for shaping the structure and capacity of the organization in a manner that enables staff to efficiently and effectively accomplish their work while reflecting the mission and culture of the District. The modeling is still a work in progress and there is more analysis required. It is also very important to allow more time to engage and inform staff than was provided in the original schedule. As a first step, we are recommending several new positions to the Board as part of the mid-year budget update on December 17th. These positions are the initial step that will provide critical administrative and project management capacity in the near term to address Measure AA, financial and business systems, analytical capacity, field capacity, and specific program staffing needs (please refer to the Attachment for a more detailed description). In January, Management Partners will meet in a study session with the Board with recommendations for a phased roll-out of the FOSM which addresses both organization structure and staffing strategies. I know that supporting employees as the organization changes is critical to the District’s future success in implementing any new structure. As we continue to define and implement the phases of FOSM, we will maintain an iterative approach that both engages and informs staff. Similarly, the project schedule will continue to include key milestone updates to the Board and seek policy direction as necessary to complete the study. The District is at an important and exciting time in our history and as we move the organization forward, we want to be sure we carefully consider strategies and paths through the FOSM study that will position us for continued and future success. ATTACHMENT Except from the December 17 Board Report Regarding Proposed New Positions With the passage of Measure AA, it is clear that the District must ramp up its resources and its project delivery capabilities to accomplish a greater number of projects both in the short term and long term to fulfill the commitments made to the public regarding greater access, new additions of protected open space lands, and resource restoration. The work to date on the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) has identified a number of obvious gaps in capacity and suggestions for adding near-term capacity to support the goal of Measure AA project delivery. Five new recruitments can be managed through the end of this fiscal year by Human Resources. Therefore, the General Manager recommends the addition of the following four new positions to jump start and support Measure AA implementation. In addition, a fifth position is recommended to begin implementation of the newly approved Integrated Pest Management Program. The addition of these five positions at Midyear would allow recruitments to begin as early as January 2015, with the expectation that the positions would be filled by May. Actual salary and benefit expenses incurred for all the positions, with the exception of the Open Space Technician, are not anticipated to begin until early FY2015-16. The Open Space Technician can be filled at a much quicker pace and there are sufficient salary savings to fund the position through the end of the current fiscal year. The five recommended new positions are as follows (please also refer to Attachment 3): Job Title: Capital Project Manager – Public Access Classification: Planner III Department: Planning This position would be responsible for implementing new public access projects for the District, focusing on Measure AA-funded projects. This much-needed additional capacity would assist with ramping up project delivery to construct additional public access improvements and open new preserve areas for recreation and outdoor education. This position would allow the District to move projects from the Measure AA “parking lot” list into the 5-year Implementation Schedule starting next fiscal year. If this position is approved, the General Manager intends to assign this position to work on the new parking area and trail connections off Sears Ranch Road in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and also at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, pending formal board confirmation of those priorities. These project priorities, as well as any additional field staff capacity needed to construct, manage, and maintain the new facilities, would be brought to the full Board for review and confirmation as part of the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Action Plan and Budget Review. Job Title: Capital Project Manager – Acquisition Classification: Planner III Department: Real Property As work to date on the FOSM study has revealed, the acquisition of new lands by the District results in major impacts to existing projects, as staff capacity from various departments is pulled to assist Real Property with addressing time-sensitive issues that come with new properties. These issues include onsite contamination, hazardous debris, and dilapidated structures. As a result, project delivery has historically been impacted as projects get delayed or deferred due to the redeployment of staff resources to address acquisition opportunities, most of which, by nature, cannot be scheduled. The recommended Capital Project Manager in Real Property would be responsible for addressing site cleanups, debris removals, and demolitions, among other capital improvements, associated with new properties as these come online. This position would allow the Real Property Department to be much more fully sustainable and avoid the need to rely on other staff resources to address capital improvements associated with new lands in a timely manner. Job Title: Finance and Budget Analyst Classification: Management Analyst I/II Department: Administration The General Manager proposes to reassign the Senior Management Analyst vacant position that is currently in the Administrative Services Department to the General Manager’s Office to manage District-wide special projects, conduct high-level systems analysis, provide District-wide project management coordination, develop new and update existing District policies, and provide District-wide Measure AA project tracking and inter-departmental coordination. As part of this change, the General Manager proposes to backfill the position in the Administrative Services Department with a Finance and Budget Analyst to coordinate and develop the Annual and Midyear District Budget, including all reporting documents (i.e. budget versus actual), as well as Annual Year End Review. In addition, this position would conduct the day-to-day budget tracking for the District and be responsible for preparing the reporting documentation for the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee. Job Title: Open Space Technician Classification: Open Space Technician Department: Operations This position would be assigned to the Skyline area and assist with addressing critical repairs and improvements on new properties, as well as conducting routine maintenance on the District’s extensive trail system. This position will help offset the increased commitment of crew time to construct and subsequently maintain new capital improvement projects, including those funded through Measure AA. Adding the Open Space Technician position at this time would allow the District to take advantage of the economy of scale that is currently available through our active hiring pool. Qualified candidates can be quickly pulled from a current and active hiring pool for a final interview. This particular hiring pool, which is active through March 2015, has been well vetted, with applications reviewed, first interviews conducted, and skills assessments completed. We have hired one person from the pool to fill a vacancy, and there are a number of viable applicants remaining in this pool. By taking advantage of the present opportunity, the District will be able to expediently and efficiently add capacity in the field without requiring a substantial amount of administrative time. Job Title: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program Coordinator Classification: Planner III Department: Natural Resources As discussed at the December 10, 2014 Board Meeting, the new IPM Program Coordinator is a position required to fully implement the IPM Program. This position would have day-to- day oversight of the IPM practices at the District, including: preparing the annual IPM work plan and report, coordinate staff/contractor/volunteer IPM training, implement the pesticide safety program, respond to public inquiries regarding the IPM Program, prepare required reports for the County Agricultural Commissioner, and other related IPM coordination and implementation tasks. DATE: December 17, 2014 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager FROM: Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager SUBJECT: Additional Administrative Office Space _____________________________________________________________________________ This memorandum serves to inform the Board that the General Manager has identified a new Midyear Action Plan project to evaluate the long-term facility plan for the Administrative Office (AO) in response to the explicit need for expanded staff capacity, which is a conclusion coming from the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model study (FOSM), and the recognition that the AO can only house an additional 8 employees based on the existing layout. The proposed project addition would not impact this fiscal year’s budget, as no funds are needed through end of March. Since the full project scope depends in part on additional findings of the FOSM and given current capacity constraints, work on this project would not begin until February 2015. A scope, schedule, and budget for subsequent project work that would continue into next fiscal year will be included as part of the FY2015-16 Action Plan and Budget, which will be coming to the Action Plan and Budget Committee in January and to the full Board in February 2015. The General Manager anticipates working closely with the Planning and Natural Resources Committee to receive early project direction, as well as develop and evaluate viable options for additional work space. In the meantime, Real Property will be prepared to act quickly on new rental space in the existing satellite building (AO2) should it become available in the near future. Please be aware that staff will need to process such an opportunity and bring it before the Board in the same manner as A02 to take advantage of time-limited opportunities. Project Name Dept. Reason for Addition Scope Completion Date Budget Administratio n Office (AO) Long-term Facility Plan PL To prepare for anticipated FOSM recommendations for a new organizational structure and increased staffing, this project would analyze and evaluate the FOSM’s findings and how they affect the current needs and challenges with staff growth and space constraints related to the existing AO facility. Compile and update previous 2009 AO facility analyses completed based on the historical trends, market conditions, staffing, and department projected needs. Present to the PNR Committee the analysis of existing and projected facility needs for the AO. Present a plan to analyze potential scenarios to address these facility needs in FY2015- 16. FY15-16 $0 Staff time only DATE: December 17, 2014 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager FROM: Shelly Lewis, Public Affairs Manager SUBJECT: Public Affairs Assistant _____________________________________________________________________________ In order to fulfill the Board’s Strategic Goal to “connect people to open space and a regional vision”, the Public Affairs Department continues to develop and implement a comprehensive public outreach strategy that engages diverse communities and enhances the District’s public education program. This strategy includes active outreach to geographically, ethnically, and economically diverse communities, as well as youth through targeted outreach and education. The Public Affairs Assistant has an important role in fulfilling the District’s strategic communications objectives and a two-year extension of this position would significantly improve the District’s ability to fulfill the following new functions: • Conducting youth outreach through high schools, colleges, clubs, youth commissions, and nonprofits. • Managing the District’s Yelp.com presence, which has over 60,000 page views per year. • Strengthening the outreach program at fairs and festivals and attending more multicultural and family events. • Engaging an increasingly tech-savvy audience by developing new media like video, which increases web site engagement by as much as 86%. • Supporting the 50+ events that the District either hosts or participates in each year. The candidate in place holds a Master’s degree in Public Health, speaks three languages, and is highly capable of performing these duties. In her first three months, she has developed three videos, assumed management of Yelp, spoken with a variety of youth groups and will present to the San Mateo County Youth Commission’s Environmental Protection Committee on December 15.