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.