Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 7931 (Terra Linda Open Space Management Plan)follows: RESOLUTION NO. 7931 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF A MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TERRA LINDA OPEN SPACE LANDS WITH LEONARD CHARLES AND ASSOCIATES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $53,800 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of San Rafael, an agreement with Leonard Charles & Associates for preparation of a Management Plan for Terra Linda Open Space lands a copy of which is hereby attached and by this reference made a part hereof. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, California, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 20th day of March, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None JEAN 2�LEONCIINI, ity Clerk ru"RIGf�AI ^q, AGREEME^JT WITH LEONARD CHARLES & ASSOCIATES FOR 'AGEMENT PLAN FOR OPEN SP! LANDS IN THE i.BRRA LINDA/SLEEPY HOLLOW D.LvIDE AREA This Agreement is made and entered into this 20th day of March 1.989 by and between the CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (hereinafter called CITY) and LEONARD CHARLES & ASSOCIATES (hereinafter called CONSULTANT). A. SCOPE OF WORK In accordance with this Agreement, the CONSULTANT agrees to provide professional services as an Environmental CONSULTANT for the preparation of a management plan for the Terra Linda/Sleepy Hollow Divide and adjacent open space lands in the Proposal from CONSULTANT for said management plan dated January 27, 1989 and amended March 9, 1989, marked Exhibit "A attached hereto. The CONSULTANT agrees to be available and perform the work within the time frame specified in this Agreement. B. DIRECTION The CONSULTANT, in performance of the Scope of Work referred to above, will work under the direction of the Director of Public Works or the Director's appointed representative. It is understood and agreed that the CONSULTANT is, and at all times shall be, an independent contractor and nothing con- tained herein shall be construed a, making the CONSULTANT, or any individual whose compensation for services is paid by the CONSULTANT, an agent or employee of the CITY, or authorizing the CONSULTANT to create or assume an obligation for on behalf of the CITY. C. PAYMENT For the payments specified herein, which the CITY agrees to maize, the CONSULTANT will undertake the above noted work. Payment for CONSULTAN'T'S services will be made as follows: (1) The CONSULTANT shall receive payment on a time and material basis for services rendered in accordance with the rates shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto. (2) The total of payments made by CITY to CONSULTANT will not exceed $53,800.00 without prior written authoriza- tion by the CITY. Costs for various tasks are aq follows: Management Plan. . . .$40,800 Soils . . . . . . . . . 10,000 Mapping . . . . . . . 3,000 Total $53,800 AGREEMENT WITH LEONARD CHARLES & ASSOCIATES FOR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OPEN SPACE LANDS IN THE TERRA LINDA/SLEEPY HOLLOW DIVIDE AREA Page Two (3) CONSULTANT's professional service fees shall be invoiced on a monthly basis. (4) Payments by the CITY, shall be made within 15 days of receipt of invoice. D. TERMS The terms of this Agreement shall be six (6) months or through September 20, 1989. Either party may terminate, with or without cause, by giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice. In the event of Agreement termination, CITY shall pay CONSULTANT all sums then due and unpaid under this Agreement. Payment by CITY of such compensation shall be con- sidered full and final settlement for all work performed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement. All completed reports and other documents and materials described in Exhibit "A", shall become the property of the CITY. E. ARBITRATION All claims or disputes between the CITY and the CONSULTANT relating to this Agreement shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, conducted in Marin County under the laws of the State of California. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. In interpreting -the provi- sions of this Agreement, the arbitrator may make an award of costs and fees, including attorney's fees necessitated by ar- bitration. F. ALTERATIONS This Agreement may be modified or extended, as necessary, for -the successful and timely completion of the services to be provided. Any modification or extension shall be expressed in •writing, as an amendment to this Agreement, and shall be ap- proved by both parties. Amendments to Exhibit "A", may be made by mutual agreement of CONSULTANT and the Director of Public Works, or the Director's appointed representative. G. INSURANCE During the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain: general and comprehensive liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than `1,000,000 for bodily or per- sonal injury or property damage as the result of any single AGREEMENT WITH LEONARD CHARLES & ASSOCIATES FOR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OPEN SPACE LANDS IN THE TERRA-LINDA/SLEEPY HOLLOW DIVIDE AREA Page Three occurrence; and professional malpractice insurance with a limit of liability of not less than $500,000 for any single occurrence, and in the aggregate. Prior to beginning work un- der this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with evidence that the insurance described above is in place. H. INDEMNITY CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold the CITY of San Rafael, its Officers, Agents and Employees harmless from all claims for injury or damage to persons or property arising from CONSULTANT's, its Agents' and Employees' negligent, will- ful or intentional acts, or CONSULTANT's, its Agents' and Employees' errors or omissions relating to activities carried out pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement. I. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY During the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT, for it- self, its assignees and successors in interest, agrees as follows: (1) Compliance with Regulations: CONSULTANT shall comply with the Executive Order 11246 entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity,: as labor regulations (41 C.F.R. Part 60), hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations." (2) Nondiscrimination: CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed by it after commencement and prior to comple- tion of the work pursuant to this Agreement, shall not discriminate on -the grounds of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in -the selection and retention of sub- contractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. (3) Solicitation for Subcontractor, Including .Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiations made by CONSULTANT for work to be performed under any subcontract, including procurements of materials or equipment, such potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by CONSULTANT of CONSULTANT's obligation under. this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex or national origins. AGREEMENT WITH LEONARD CHARLES & ASSOCIATES FOR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OPEN SPACE LANDS IN THE TERRA LINDA/SLEEPY HOLLOW DIVIDE AREA Page Four (4) Information and Reports: CONSULTANT shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or orders and instructions issued pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information and its facilities as may be determined by CITY to be pertinent to ascertain com- pliance with such regulations, orders and instructions. Where any information required of CONSULTANT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, CONSULTANT shall so certify to CITY and shall set forth what efforts it has made to ob- tain the information. (5) Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of noncom- pliance by CONSULTANT with the nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, CITY shall impose such con- tract sanctions as it may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: (a) Withholding of payments to CONSULTANT under the con- tract until CONSULTANT complies; (b) Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. (6) Incorporation of Provisions: CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of paragraphs 1 through 5 in every sub- contract, including Regulations, order, or instructions issued pursuant thereto. CONSULTANT shall take such ac- tion with respect to any subcontract or procurement as CITY may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or sup- plier as a result of such direction, CONSULTANT may request CITY to enter such litigation to protect the in- terests of CITY. AGREEMENT WITH LEONARD CHARLES & ASSOCIAT'ES FOR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OPEN SPACE LANDS IN THE TERRA LINDA/SLEEPY HOLLOW DIVIDE AREA Page Five IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have caused their authorized representatives to execute this Agreement the day and year first written above. CITY: -� DA ID, . BERNA DI.n�vwvt�cl Director of Public Works APPROVED AS TO FORM: il--ET Y AttoTfly CONSULTANT: 4'' 1 (, (- LEONARD CHARLES -1 ASSOCIATES Attachment 1. Exhibit "A" - Proposal and amended Proposals from Leonard Charles & Associates and Herzog Associates (34 pages). BID PRO POSAL IM11.311 A Leonard Charles & Associates BID PROPOSAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OPEN SPACE LANDS IN THE TERRA LINDA/SLEEPY HOLLOW DIVIDE AREA January, 1989 Prepared for: City of San Rafael Department of Public Works 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, California 94901 Marin County Open Space District Marin County Civic Center San Rafael, California 94903 Prepared by: Leonard Charles and Associates 58500 Bohan -Dillon Road Cazadero, California 95421 (707) 847-3480 January 27, 1989 Mr. Dave Bernardi City of San Rafael Department of Public Works 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Ms. Fran Brigmann Marin County Open Space Marin County Civic Center San Rafael, CA 94903 - Dear Dave and Fran, Leonard Charles and Associates is pleased to submit the fol- lowing Bid Proposal to prepare a Management Plan for the Terra Linda/Sleepy Hollow Divide and adjacent Open Spaces. In preparing this proposal, we have spent considerable time reviewing the concerns of both your agencies as well as reviewing past management plans for other open space lands and surveying the site. We feel the proposed scope of work addresses the principal concerns you explained to me as well as the need for a comprehensive plan that addresses all man- agement issues. It is our goal to prepare an assessment of a number of management options in order to provide a factual basis for future discussions about who will manage the area, how it will be managed, and who will pay for it. We recog- nize that this task is generally outside the development of a management plan, but that it is a critical question in this case. We assure you that we will prepare required analyses that should ease the difficulties involved. While ultimately, management decisions must be the joint responsibility of your two agencies, we believe that our analyses and reports will allow a clear understanding of the choices and a clear picture of the ramifications of a selected management direction. We look forward to the challenge of this project. You will find our past experience, where we are commonly embroiled in controversial projects, helpful not only in discussions at the agency level but in consultations with homeowners groups, environmental organizations, and the general public. This proposal is an outline of what work we feel is required in order to come up with a specific, task -related- management plan. In several cases, if a more generalized management plan is desired, less work needs to be done by experts. In this case, if you desire, we can change the proposal, and thereby decrease the cost. We expect that you will wish to meet with K us to discuss this bid and its several options. We would welcome such a meeting in order that we might flesh out the outline of work included in this proposal. Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, " 6ast, Leonard Charles I INTRODUCTION This Bid Proposal is in response to the request of the Marin County Open Space District (MCOSD) and the City of San Rafael for the preparation of a Management Plan for the the Terra Linda/Sleepy Hollow Divde Open Space plus adjoining City open space (Mont Marin and smaller adjoining parcels). This proposal was prepared on the basis of conversations with staff of both agencies, review of existing data and management plans, site visits to the area, and conversations with expert consultants. Before detailing the proposed scope of work and methodologies, we would note the following strengths of this proposal and our firm: 1. Experience. Over the past ten years, LCA has prepared consulting studies on many types of projects. We are quite familiar with the area in concern as this was one of the open space areas assessed in the Feral Pig Study we prepared for the MCOSD and the Marin Municipal Water District in 1987. Dave Amme has already assessed this open space as part of his review of grazing in the area. In addition to our familiarity with the area and experi- ence in preparing management studies, we are experienced in dealing with controversial projects that require meeting with many segments of a community (for example, we have been working on preparing a study of fire management on Mount Tamalpais - a process that has required several meetings with represenatives of local environmental organizations, fire department staff, and other public agency staff) . 2. Timeliness. Our reports are always prepared in a timely fashion, and we have never missed a contractual deadline. 3. Report Focus. Our analyses and reports focus on specific, important problem areas and the means to mitigate problems. The management plan will be a specific plan of recom- mendations for management and not a broad overview of problems where solutions can only be determined via additional studies. 4. Reputation. Our firm has earned a solid reputation for its objectivity and thoroughness. Our approach and this reputation is extremely advantageous when dealing with a complex, and possibly controversial, plan of future management. 2 The following sections describe the overall goals of the study, the general process for preparation, the scope of work and methodologies, and the products that will result. GOALS The obvious goal is to prepare a feasible management plan for the area in question. This plan will be comprehensive and specific, covering all the concerns of the agencies in- volved as well as the concerns of various segments of the general public. More specifically, our goals include: 1. The preparation of the plan will require ongoing inter- action with the staffs of both agencies involved to insure that the management options being assessed are realistic and appropriate for the two agencies. 2. Preparation will require meetings with local homeowners associations and other public groups. The preparation of the plan will become a forum for community input as regards future management of the area. 3. The plan will focus on specific management goals and means of implementation. The plan will be comprehensive, but particular attention will be given to the issues of fire hazard, grazing, impacts on police departments, public access, and costs. The final report, once it has been thoroughly reviewed by the two agencies (see the section on Process below), will include an actual implementation program based on a priority ranking of measures and/or improvements required or recommended. 4. The plan, and its preparation, will provide a working forum for the City of San Rafael and the MCOSD to determine who is going to manage the area, what the goals of management will be, and who will pay for this management. We re- cognize that this is a critical element in preparation of the management plan. While we certainly cannot pro- mise that we can mediate an agreement among the two agencies that will make everyone happy, we will provide a factual base where management options can be clearly compared and assessed. We also recognize that we would not be hired as "mediators" per se; however, we are ex- perienced in such mediation and will be happy to provide our perspective on these management questions when the agencies sit down with us to examine the management options we present daring the phases of plan preparation that will lead up to the final management plan. 3 PROCESS The following process is envisioned, though this process may be altered depending on the wishes of the agencies and/or contingencies that arise during plan preparation. Phase 1 Confer with staffs of agencies, review all existing data, and conduct preliminary field surveys in order to prepare preliminary management alternatives. At this preliminary stage, we envision that 3-4 basic management options will be developed. Confer with staffs of MCOSD and the City to determine the feasibility of these basic management options. If desired these preliminary options (or management "directions") can be presented to public groups to gather their input. ?hase 2 Conduct detailed analyses of the various site constraints, impacts, and results of the various management choices. This will include meetings with fire department staff, police depoartment staff, and staff of all other pertinent agencies. Prepare a preliminary report that discusses the ramifi- cations of the several management options. Conduct additional analyses or investigate different combinations of management options as suggested by staffs of the City and the MCOSD. On the basis of this preliminary report, meet with staffs to discuss questions of management authority. If desired, this preliminary report can be presented at public forums for community input. Conversely, the agencies may wish to wait until the final report is com- pleted before there is public presentation. hase 3 We will prepare the final management plan. This plan can either elaborate on one preferred management option, or it can present more than one option. This choice will be made by the agencies. Present the report to pertinent boards and public groups. Respond to all comments on the plan. 4 SCOPE OF WORK The management plan, as well as earlier drafts that assess more than one management alternative, will include three basic parts. First, there will be an environmental assessment. This assessment will describe existing conditions for the various environmental areas. It will then discuss the impacts that would result from the various management options being considered (e.g., the impacts of various fire management manipulations on biota). Finally, it will contain mitigations or recommended guidelines regulating development, use, and access. The second part of the report will include the actual manage- ment plan that details the actions to be taken, the general managment goals and policies, and management responsibilities. The final part of the plan will include a specific implemen- tation program that outlines what recommended activities should occur first as well as how these activities should be implemented. Each of these sections is discussed below: Environmental Assessment This part of the report begins with a complete explanation of where the open space lands are located (including several locator maps), a legal description of the properties, a description of the City's and the MCOSD's goals and policies regarding open space lands, and an introductory description of the basic environmental setting. Following these, and any other necessary introductory sections, there will be the specific analyses for each area of environmental concern as outlined below. Mapping Base maps for the area will be prepared by Towill Inc. as discussed in their letter to the MCOSD dated October 12. The maps presented are specified in that letter; such maps will be prepared for a cost of $6,275.00. It is expected that the agencies will wish to proceed with this contract which would be a separate contract from our preparation of the management plan (though if desired, we could incorporate Towill's work into our contract). The agencies might wish to forego this expense and simply have the area aerial photographed (for approximately $1,000) and not have Towill prepare the topo maps. Useable base maps could be generated by our firm (based on aerial photos and existing mapping) sufficient for management purposes at considerably less cost. However, this is a decision the agencies must make. 5 Geology/Soils The agencies, especially the City, have indicated the need for a geotechnical assessment of landslides and other potential geologic hazards on the property. We have arranged with our geologic subconsultants, Herzog Associates, to provide for such an assessment, if desired. The reader will note that the property contains a large number of slides, all of which need to be field checked to determine the actual hazard as well as possible means of dealing with identified hazard. The scope proposed by Herzog Associates (included later in this proposal) is detailed to the level where the agencies will actually be able to determine where hazards exist and what might be done to alleviate them. The cost for this work is relatively expensive. Such an assessment would generally not be included in a management plan, and we believe that the cost, which is optional, should not be considered as part of the cost of actually preparing the management plan (hereafter called MP). If the agencies decide not to include this assessment, we will examine and describe property geology at a level more typical of a MP. Existing geologic data and mapping would be used to identify landslides and faults, but no attempt would be made to assess the hazard of each slide nor mitigations (though a middle level of assessment could be arranged). The geologic assessment would also include assessments of erosion from existing roads, slides, and trails, impacts on soils and erosion from grazing, and sedimentation impacts on receiving waterways. All this data will be used in determining potential management options regarding such elements as grazing, new trail and road alignments, and fire management. Hydrology/Drainage We will do the following: 1. Existing drainage courses and watersheds will be described and mapped. 2. Confer with the agencies regarding off-site drainage problems. Identify and describe any such problems. 3. Identify erosion sources and sedimentation impacts. 4. Assess the impacts of grazing, trails, roads, etc. on erosion and sedimentation. M 5. Assess impacts on drainage that could result from the possible improvements recommended by the MP (e.g., new trails or roads, decreased grazing, landslide control, etc.) 6. Suggest mitigation measures required to control sediment- ation and any off-site flooding. Grazing Management The assessment of grazing will be under the direction of David Amme who recently completed a short-term grazing ana- lysis of the property. His proposed scope of work includes preparing a rangeland inventory and range resources map. Specifically, this work would include: 1. Describe past and existing grazing programs. 2. Determine the range's carrying capacity. 3. Describe existing species composition and future trends. 4. Describe site soils and slope conditions. 5. Assess the existing noxious weed problems. 6. Identify native plant habitat requirements. 7. Assess existing and projected human use of the property on grazing. 8. Assess potential management improvements (e.g., fire management options, new trails, increased human and dog presence, etc.) on grazing. 9. Prepare a detailed range resources map upon which future grazing programs can be based. Wildlife and Vegetation Using much of the data generated by Mr. Amme in the above- described analysis, we would do the following: 1 . Describe existing plant communities and habitats. Assess future trends based on existing use and potential new uses (e.g., increased human presence, fire management op- tions, etc.). 2. Des:ribe existing wildlife use of the property. Assess impacts of existing use and future uses on wildlife. 3. Identify populations of rare and endangered species of plants or animals (assumes assistance of CNPS). Assess potential impacts on these species. 7 4. Identifv Dotential "sensitive habitat areas". Determine limitations to use and access to these areas. 5. Assess exotic plants and means of eliminatinq them. 6. Determine impact of grazing on native biota. Assess impacts of possible future grazing regimes. 7. Assess impacts of human use on biota. 8. Assess fire management techniques on biota. 9. Determine measures required to limit impact or improve identified biotic habitats. Measures may include recom- mendations regarding grazing, fire management, human use and access, control of dogs and horses, trail placement, erosion control, development of water sources, and re- habilitation of damged habitats. Wildfire Hazard Rather than provide a general description and assessment of basic fire dangers and a management plan based on past practices, we are recommending a thorough assessment of fire hazard along with a detailed fire management plan. It is felt this is necessary given the proximity of the property to urban development. This analysis will be directed by Carol Rice who is an experienced fire ecologist. She will do the following: 1. Based on examination of aerials, existing data, and field surveys as well as conversations with the pertinent fire departments, provide an overview of the fire hazard of the property. 2. The fire hazards analysis will include fuel characterization and a description of fire behavior based on fuels, slopes, meteorological conditions, etc. 3. Assess the influence of grazing and other uses on fire hazard. 4. Determine options for management including grazing, mechanical treatment, prescribed fires, hand clearing, etc. A preliminary review indicates that it would not be difficult to provide improvements that would allow access to the entire perimeter bordering Terra Linda. 5. The management analysis would include assessing the costs, environmental impacts, effectiveness, and feasibility for each option. F:? 6. The data developed as part of this in determining impacts and options other sections of the Environmental eventual Management Plan. Access/Traffic analysis would be used for many of the Assessment and the 1. Identify and map all existing and potential access points (of which there are between 20 and 30). 2. Determine available parking at each access. 3. Assess impacts on local streets to determine if vehicular access constitutes a traffic hazard. Assess whether parking significantly impacts resident parking (much of this data will be obtained from residents). 4. Assess access on the property itself as regards ease of access for fire and police response. 5. Recommend accesses that should be eliminated, added, improved, or limited based on the above analysis. Police and Emergency Services 1. Confer with the pertinent police departments and the MCOSD rangers to determine current police and emergency response to the property. 2. Confer with police departments in other areas where open space lands with limited use become areas of higher use to determine what increase in police or emergency response is experienced. We will seek out properties in the greater Bay Area of similar size and location and attempt to record actual response statistics. 3. Record the opinions of the pertinent local police depart- ments and rangers as to the effect greater human use of the property might have on those departments. 4. Discuss the time and costs that options involving greater human use will have. 5. Based on these conversations, make preliminary recommen- dations as to who should have jurisdiction on the property and who should finance policing costs. Recreational Use 1. Describe existing use patterns. Based on conversations with local residents, MCOSD rangers and staff, and City Parks staff, determine existing recreational use. M1' 2. Describe existing trail system and existing uses by hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians. Describe ease of access to trail systems. Describe off -trail use areas. Describe short-term usde permits use of the area. Describe existing signing. 3. Describe existing publicity on information provided that encourages use of.the property. 4. Based on much of the data determined elsewhere in the Environmental Assessment, determine alternative new trail routes (and map them). Assess the environmental impacts of these seveal alternatives. 5. Assess use by equestrians and bicyclists; determine alternative access plans for these users. 6. Assess the impacts of dogs and make recommendations. 7. Assess alternative access and signing plans. 8. Assess alternative "publicity" approaches (i.e., should the open space be left unannounced or should some level of publicizing its existence and availability be made). 9. Assess short-term use permit uses. 10. Identify alternative locations where visitor -serving improvements could be made. 11. Assess the impacts on the environment, costs, and overall management for all these alternatives. Management Costs 1. Confer with the MCOSD and the City and pertinent departments of the City to determine existing management costs. 2. Describe existing management responsibilities. 3. Determine approximate costs of the various management actions identified during our analysis (e.g., new trails, fire management costs, access improvements, etc.). 4. Assess polcing costs for various alternatives. 5. Assess fire management costs compared to potential costs and liability if a wildfire began on the property. Zo 6. Determine existing and possible future sources of financing both ongoing management and administration as well as recommended capital improvements. 7. Compute overall costs for various management actions and overall alternatives. Other Factors The Environmental Assessment will also assess potential iinpacts on visual quality (from surrounding areas). We will determine whether potential management activities would have an adverse effect on surrounding vistas. We are not proposing any type of archaeological survey of the property at this time since the cost of surveying the entire property would be prohibitive. Instead, surveys should be done prior to any planned activity. It is unlikely that the propertv contains significant archaeological sites, and this should not prove a major constraint on any future management actions. If desired, however, we can provide for an archaeological records search for the property. Development of the Master Plan As previously described, a determination of the range of management actions open to the agencies will be made at preliminary meetings with the staffs of both agencies. It is expected that we will hold 2-3 meetings with staff including Mr. Paolini, Mr. Hyde, and possibly represenatives of the Marin Fire District and pertinent police departments. Depending on the wishes of the agencies, we would also be prepared to hold preliminary meetings with the Open Space and Trails Committee, lcoal homeowners associations, local environ- mental organizations, and/br the general public. Whether such public input is necessary and/or desirable at this stage is a decision that can be made by the agencies. A goal of these preliminary meetings is not only to identify the range of all potential management actions, but to determine several basic management approaches. These approaches will center on the amount of access and use proposed for the property. At this time, at least three basic approaches are envisioned: 1. High Use - promotion of availability and improvements to access, trails, use areas, etc. 2. Low Use - limiting access, trails, and publicity to a level approximating current use. 3. Intermediate Use - a hybrid that combines elements of both of the former approaches. 11 Once the range of potential management actions and the basic approaches are determined, we will conduct the Environmental Assessment outlined above. This is not to say that we will not continue to consult and coordinate our actions with the staffs of the agencies. We will keep them continually informed regarding our findings and recommendations. We wish to emphasize that we are not just providing a report but a forum for realistic decision-making. As such, we will con- tinually involve the agencies in our assessments and decisions. Upon completing the Envirommnetal Assessment, we will compile our analyses into a preliminary Management Plan (MP); this plan will assess all feasible managment actions and the three (or more) basic management approaches. To facilitate the comparison of alternative management actions, we will prepare a comprehensive Matrix Table that will measure the impact of each alternative action. These tables (which we have employed successfully in the past), identify the major areas of environmental and management concern; each concern is given a weight reflecting its importance (assignment of weights will be discussed with the agencies). Each alternative management action is then assigned a ranking for each area of concern; thus a ranking of "1" means that this action is deleterious to the area under consideration, a score of "5" means it is neutral, and a score of "10" means it is advantageous. The ranking for each area is multiplied times the weight of the category giving a score for that category and action. The scores for each action can then be totalled to give a total score for the action It is simpler if a hypothetical example is given (it should be emphasized that the scoring done in this example is entirely hypothetical and does not represent any preliminary conclusions on our part). This example is shown on the following page. It must be emphasized that this Table is a tool to assist in decision- making regarding possible actions and Management Plans. It is unlikely that the agencies would want this Table in the final MP as such tools that quantify environmental variables can be extremely controversial. Rather, the Table is suggested as one more tool - a shorthand measurement. It must be used i•n conjunction with the narrative descriptions provided in the preliminary MP and its maps. This is necessary because an action may receive an overall low score when measured against all environmental categories, but it may score highly in one or two areas that may be critical to one or both agencies (for example, provision of an extensive trail system may have adverse impacts for many environmental categories, but it is extremely advantageous as regards recreational opportunities for the public). This tool provides one more way that the agencies can measure possible alternative actions. 12 Matrix Table Example Example environmental categories Example Mgmt. Impact on Wildfire Wildlife Recreational Mgmt. Total Action Police (6)Hazard(9)_Impact(6)_ Use (6) Costs Score 15 miles of trail 4 (24) 10 m. of trail 6 (36) 5'm. of trail 8 ( 48 ) Dogs allowed 4 (24) No dogs allowed 6 (24) Prescribed burn for "x" area 8 (48) Mech. clearing of strip near Terra Linda 8 (48) No fire Improvements 5 (30) 5 (45) 6 ( 54 ) 7 (63) 5 (30) 6 (36) 7 (42) 9 ( 54 ) 7 (42) 5 (30) 5 (45) 3 (18) 5 (30) 5 (45) 10 (60) 5 (30) 9 ( 81 ) 7 (42) 6 (36) 8 (72) 5 (30) 6 (36) 2 918) 5 (30) 5 (30) 3 (21) 174 4 (28) 196 5 ( 35 ) 215 4 928) 151 8 ( 56 ) 215 7 ( 49 ) 25.6 6 ( 42 ) 228 3 921) 129 The weight for each category is multiplied times the ranking for each action to give a score (the number in parentheses). The scores are added to give a total score for that action. This allows the agencies to compare alternative actions within each category of action (e.g., trail improvements, fire management actions, etc.). 13 The preliminary MP will also include preliminary base maps. Maps will include: 1. Fire hazard and fire management map 2. Range resources and management map 3. Significant natural features map 4. Geological hazards maps 5. Hydrologic features map 6. Vegetation and wildlife map 7. Management plan maps (for all alternatives) This preliminary MP will be presented and discussed with agency staffs as well as staffs of all other agencies that the MCOSD and City feel should be consulted. It is expected that consultation on this preliminary MP will require as many as 3-5 meetings since the meetings will be concerned not only with deciding on a management approach but act as a forum for determining who will manage the area and how such management shall be financed. At this time, if the agencies so desire, we can also present the preliminary MP to the Open Space and Trails Committee, local homeowners associations, local environmental org- anizations, and/or the general public. However, the agencies may wish till we complete an actual Draft MP before it is presented to any or all of these groups. Following the conclusion of these meetings, an overall man- agement approach will be determined and presented in a Draft MP (unless the agencies decide they want more than one approach described in the Draft Plan; in that case, all desired alter- natives will be presented). The Draft Plan will also in- clude an Implementation Plan. This Plan which will be based on prioritizing which actions are most critical, and should occur first (given financial relaities). The Plan will detail which actions should be taken, when, how funded, and under whose jurisdiction. Again, this plan will be checked with the agencies prior to finalization. The Implementation Plan will provide a specific guide -to implementing the actions recommended in the Master Plan. It will not simply be an overview of management goals wherein "future studies" are required prior to taking any concrete action. 14 Upon completion of the Draft MP and Implementation Plan, we will present the report to all pertinent reviewing agencies for comment. We will also conduct meetings with all the public groups previously listed. All comments on the Draft Plan will be considered and responded to. Again, this will require meetings with the staffs of the agencies. The final product will be a Final Master Plan. This Plan will be suitable not only for long-term planning, it will be a tool that can be used by field personnel for guiding daily management and implementing any fianlly recommended improvements. 15 SCHEDULE It is envisioned that preparation of the preliminary management plan will take approximately 3-4 months from the time we are authorized to begin work. The final plan will depend on the number of changes required by the agencies and the number of public presentations required. PRODUCTS We will provide the agencies with ten copies of the original outline of management options. We will provide ten copies of the preliminary management plan. We will provide three copies of the final management plan as well as one camera- ready original. STAFF The following individuals will work on this project: Leonard Charles Lynn Milliman David Amme Carol Rice Don Ristau Project Manager Report Production/Graphics Native Plant/Open Space Management Specialist Fire Management Consultant Engineering Geologist, Herzog Associates Resumes for all these individuals are included at the end of this proposal. We would note that Leonard Charles and Lynn Milliman have worked on the Feral Pig Study done for MCOSD properties. Leonard Charles, Carol Rice, and David Amme have all worked on preparing the scope of work for the pro- posed Vegetation and Fire Management Studies for the MCOSD and MMWD. David Amme has worked on the Terra Linda/Sleepy Hollow Divide property in his recent review of grazing on this property. Don Ristau has worked on geotechnical investi- gations for the MCOSD in the past. REFERENCES The following individuals can be used for references for Leonard Charles and Associates: Richard Lehtinen Environmental Coordinator Sonoma County Planning Dept. 707-527-2412 Alex Hinds Planning Director Lake Co. Planning Dept. 707-263-2221 Rich Fischer District Superintendent Harmony School District 707-874-3627 Steve Petterle Marin Municipal Water Dist. 415-924-4600 16 References for Carol Rice (Wildland Resources Management) include: Elaine Bild Director of Office of Environmental Health and Safety University of California 415-642-9176 Richard Harrell Office of Fire and Aviation USDA Forest Service 415-556-0814 Dave Amme and Herzog Associates are already well-known to the MCOSD and the City. 17 PRICE QUOTE The following describes our price for the described work. See the Notes to the Price Quote on the following page regarding additional work: Phase 1 Preliminary Research $ 1,400 Meetings 500 Phase 2 Geology/Soils (not including Herzog) 600 Hydrology/Drainage 11000 Grazing Management 5,600 Wildlife and Vegetation 2,100 Wildfire Management 5,400 Traffic/Access 2,100 Police Services 2,100 Recreational Use 1,700 Management Costs 3,200 Other Factors 200 Management Plan Prep. 5,200 Graphics 1,500 Printing 200 Meetings 1,400 Phase 3 Meetings 900 Prep. of Final Management Plan 2,100 Report Coordination 1,700 Total $38,900 W NOTES TO THE PRICE QUOTE 1. This price quote does not include the cost of mapping by Towill. Their bid and price is included in the fol- lowing pages. 2. This quote does not include the detailed geologic hazards assessment that would be conducted by Don Ristau of Her- zog Associates. Their proposal and price is included in the following pages. 6'-joC6;i-7; 3. This quote does not include archaeologic/historic sur- veys. If this is desired, we can arrange with Sonoma State University to conduct a records search. If desired, we can have our archaeologist, Tom Origer (recognized as a professional archaeologist by Sonoma State) to con- duct necessary field surveys. 4. This proposal is for a detailed Management Plan. If the agencies desire a less specific plan and wish to elimi- nate the grazing plan and the fire management plan, this would result in a cost savings of approximately $7,000. 5. The quote includes the printing of 10 copies of the pre- liminary managment options, 10 copies of the preliminary Master Plan, and 3 copies of the Final Plan. This printing does not include maps; we will provide one set of camera- ready copies of the maps with the preliminary Plan and the Final Plan. tierzog Associates RECEIVED March 6, 1989 MAR 8 1989 Job No: 2633.1.0.1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. �� CITY OF BAN RAFAEL SPT. o}' U L: -,o ►S:-% ��i :wr iCt RO, A Leonard Charles Associates ` tint c/o Leonard Charles`s 58500 Bohan -Dillon Road`' —' Cazadero, California 95421 PBS. - —` Trtttfic Em i RE: Revised Proposal Geotechnical Evaluation -•- f Sleepy Hollow/Terra Linda Land Management Plan C `C nor I Marin County, California This presents our revised proposal to perform a geotechnical hazard evaluation for the Sleepy Hollow/Terra Linda Divide Open Space Area in Marin County, California. Our original proposal, dated January 24, 1989, proposed a wider scope of work than was required by the City of San Rafael. We understand that a proposed Management Plan is to be developed for the area, and a geohazards assessment is to be included as part of the plan. The project area is shown on the topographic map that you provided for our review, and we understand that approximately 1600 acres is to be evaluated. The purpose of our investigation is to evaluate the geotechnical hazards within the property, (as related to slope stability) and to assess the risk of slope instability on areas adjacent to privately developed properties. In preparing this proposal we have briefly discussed the proposed project with you and with Fran BriQmann (Marin County Open Space District), David Bernardi (City of San Rafael), and reviewed the California Division of Mines and Geology geologic/slope stability mapping for the area. y� SCOPE Our scope of work would be as outlined in v_ our letter of January 17, 1989 and is to include: 1. Review selected geologic literature and maps available for the site and vicinity. Herzog Associates Leonard Charles Associates Leonard Charles Job No. 2633.1-0-1 Sleepy Hollow/Terra Linda Land Management Plan March 6, 1989 - Page 2 2. Interpret aerial photos supplied by Towill, Inc. at a scale of 1" = 400'. Based ori the photo -interpretation, we would map identified geologic hazards (i.e., fault traces and landslides) that could affect adjacent property. 3. Geologic conditions identified by photographic interpretation would be field checked. 4. Geologic hazards would be mapped on base maps provided by Leonard Charles and Associates. 5. Hazards would be assessed and prioritized as to how they could affect adjacent residential or other urban development. 6. Provide a preliminary discussion of what measures could be implemented to mitigate identified high -hazard conditions. 7. Prepare a written report that addresses the above geotechnical issues. Our scope of work does not include evaluation of any potential hazardous waste contamination of the soil or ground water at the site. FEE We propose to perform our geotechnical investigation for the proposed land management plan for the lump sum fee of $10,000. Our work would be performed in accordance with the attached General Conditions. Supplemental services such as plan review, consultations following report submittal, attendance at public meetings, and construction observation are in addition to the above estimated fee. We would charge for these services in accordance with our Schedule of Charges. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this proposal, please contact us. Herzog Associates Leonard Charles Associates Leonard Charles Job No. 2633.1-0-1 Sleepy Hollow/Terra Linda Land Management Plan March 6, 1989 - Page 3 When you wish us to proceed, please return one signed copy of this proposal to confirm your authorization. Yours very truly, HERZOG ASSOCIATES, INC. Lyle Lewis Geotechnical Engineer - 523 LL:DH:cmc/S28-41 Two copies submitted Attachment: Schedule of Charges General Conditions cc: City of San Rafael Attention: Dave Bernardi 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94903 Marin County Open Space District Attention: Fran Brigmann 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 AUTHORIZATION DATE SCHI )ULE OF CHARGES 989 Unless agreed otherwise, work is charged for on a Time and Expense basis in accordance with the following Schedule of Charges: Hourly Rates Personnel Principal Engineer $160 Senior Hydrogeologist 100-140 Associate/Branch Manager 80-100 Senior Engineer or Geologist 75-95 Engineer/Geologist/Hydrogeologist 60-80 Staff Engineer/Geologist/Hydrogeologist 50-75 Senior Field Technician 55-65 Field Technician/Hydrogeologist 40-55 Lab Technician 30-40 Drafting 30-45 Report Production 30-40 Miscellaneous Labor 30-40 Equipment Portable Auger with Crew $80 Seismic Refraction Timer (single channel) 30 Slope Indicator (4 hour minimum) 15 Methane Tester 10 Vehicles 8 Computer 40 Sampler 4 Air Photo Library 50/use Nuclear Density Test 6/each Portable Gas Chromatograph 250/day Gas Analysis 5/each Gas Analyzer 50/day Permeameter 50/day Field Permeability Test 25/each Tensiometer 25/day Conductivity/pH meter 30/day Bailer 10/day Suction Pump 10/day Bladder Pump 35/day Other Standard laboratory tests are charged for on a unit cost basis in accordance with the Laboratory Schedule of Charges, available upon request. Travel time is charged at regular hourly rates. No charges are made for mileage or samples. The charge for appearance as an expert witness for court appearances or deposition is at $200 per hour for the principal engineer and $120 per hour for all other professionals, payable in advance. Four-hour and eight-hour minimums apply. Outside services including consultants, subcontracted exploration equipment, reproduction, meals and lodging, shipping, and special equipment or services not ordinarily provided are charged at cost plus 20%. Additional report copies: Long Form $20 each; Letter Report $15 each. Other in-house copying: $0.25 per page. Photographs: $1.00 each. Charges for work on continuing projects will be based on a new Schedule of Charges effective January 1 of each year. SC890109 (continued) LEu,IARD CHARLES & ASSOGiATES Environmental Consultants 58500 BOHAN-DILLON ROAD CAZADERO, CALIFORNIA 95421 (707) 847-3480 March 9, 1989 Mr. Dave Bernardi City of San Rafael Department of Public Works Mrs. Fran Brigmann Marin County Open Space District Dear Dave and Fran, MAR 141989 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, CITY Of BAN MVAEL Enclosed is an amendment to our proposal that responds to the points raised in your letter of March 1. I trust it covers the salient points to your satisfaction. Contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I would note that we need to work immediately (i.e., after March 20) so that we don't miss the flowering season (which is essential for plant identification). Sincerely, Leonard Charles n=PT. OF PUBLIC'fV0`1KS - ..._Routs To _ )Py mu. Director: _ A,&sl. Dir. '"— nitic�_Eny SUFI. P.W. Park Supt. Swlbr Ems. AM= Etta. `mft OIL ()(c n�- 0% LEUIvARD CHARLES & ASSOGiATES Environmental Consultants 58500 BOHAN-DILLON ROAD CAZADERO, CALIFORNIA 95421 (707) 847.3480 March 9, 1989 Mr. Dave Bernardi City of San Rafael Department of Public Works 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Mrs. Fran Brigmann Marin County Open Space District Marin County Civi Center San Rafael, CA 94903 Dear Dave and Fran, We wish to make the following additions and clarifications to our Bid Proposal for preparing a Management Plan for the Terra Linda/Sleepy Hollow Divide open space. The fol- lowing additions should be .considered as an amendment to the original proposal for purposes of a contract. 1. History of Open Space. A section will be included that includes a history of the acquisition of the open space lands and a summary of the written agreements between the City and the District regarding the managment of jointly held lands. 2. Grazing Management. This section will include an actual Grazing Program covering such issues as stocking rates, rotations, fencing, rest periods, minimum residue, etc. The grazing assessment will address noxious weed problems vis-a-vis grazing or non -grazing. The grazing assessment will identify native plant habitat requirements for the major plant communities found in the grazing areas vis-a-vis grazing. 3. Wildlife and Vegetation. The impacts of grazing on existing and future uses of grazed areas by wildlife will be addressed. The impacts of grazing, wildfire, and other human uses (e.g., trails, access) on rare and endangered species will be addressed. Obviously, this assessment will rely on known data regarding impacts on rare and endangered species. In many cases, little is known regarding the requirements of such plants, for example, it is not known in many cases whether periodic burning is beneficial or adverse on a particular plant species. We will not be providing original research in such cases. Rather .PJ we will assess such impacts given existing data on the needs of such rare or endangered plants. 4. Wildfire Hazard. We will address the question of responsi- bility regarding clearance of vegetation around homes. We will specify who is responsible for each area of jurisdiction. 5. Access/Traffic. The following analyses will be added to this section: a. Note public access points that have been blocked off by private uses. b. Discuss the need for control of access points to elimi- nate unwanted vehicle and motorcycle entry. C. Discuss ease of access for management improvements and maintenance. 6. Police Services.. We will contact the City of Novato regarding police response to open space problems as recommended in your letter. 7. Recreational Use. We will address the management of equestrians, bicyclists, and hikers vis-a-vis management policy as well as site planning. We will offer recommen- dations regarding future policy. Recommendations shall include assessment of safety questions and possible impacts on adjacent, private lands. B. Development of Master Plan. We concur with you that there are many inherent problems in using the Matrix Table. We will eliminate this suggestion. Instead, the advantages and disadvantages of alternative management options will be compared in a more usual qualitative fashion. 9. Land Use. We will address the issue of private encroach- ments on open space lands. We will identify where such encroachments are occurring and offer suggestions as to how to remedy existing and any future encroachments. We will assess the public need for access to public lands as suggested on page 2 (#8c) of your letter. 10. Archaeology. We will be happy to provide the requested Records Search. Sonoma State University will conduct this search for an additional $400. flowever, we would note that it is likely that all the Records Search will con- clude is that there may be significant archaeological or historic remains in the area and that a Field Survey by a professional archaeologist will be required. Again, F it would be wasteful to have an archaeologist field survey the entire 1500+ acres as this would,be relatively expensive (depending on SSU's recommendations). We will, however, provide this Records Search since you will need it at some point anyway. The actual field survey could wait until it was known what areas would be subject to some action. 11. Mapping It is up to the District and the City to de- termine what level of base maps they want. We will use whatever is provided. 12. Geology. Again, we leave it to the City and the District to determine the scope of work for Herzog Associates. We will include their findings in our Report. 4 Amendment to Price Quote The additional work outlined above requires an addition to our original price quote. 1. The Records Search will cost an additional $400. 2. The additional work regarding a complete Grazaing Pro- gram will not cost any additional monies as most of it was proposed in the original proposal. The additional work will be offset by dropping the work on preparing the Matrix Tables. 3. The additional work regarding a summary of acquisition and management agreements, additional access analyses, recreational analyses, and encroachment problems will cost an additional $1,500. This will bring the total price for LCA's work to $40,800. The additional work to be performed by Towill and/or Herzog Associates should be added to this total. We are not sure how the agencies wish us to bill them. Generally, we receive 25-50% of the contract price upon con- tract signature. We would appreciate being paid at least 25% up front to cover our costs. We could then either bill you monthly or upon completion of specific tasks, depending on your wishes.