Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Agenda Packet 2007-10-03 17-30 (2)
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, October 03, 2007 OPEN MEETING – 6:00 P.M. – ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE Joint meeting with Montalvo Arts. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 28, 2007) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Report from Montalvo Arts. Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1 CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 14-20, 2007 as “Teen Read Week” Recommended action: Present proclamation. 2. Appointment of Heritage Preservation and Traffic Safety Commissioners and Oath of Office Recommended action: Adopt the attached resolution appointing one member to the Heritage Preservation Commission and one member to the Traffic Safety Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 3. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended action: Accept the Accounts Payable Check Registers for the following payment cycles: September 12 and 19, 2007 4. Treasurer's Report Recommended action: Accept the monthly Treasurer's Report 5. Establishing a Time and Place for Regular Meeting for the City Council Finance Standing Committee Recommended action: Adopt the attached resolution establishing the time and place for regular meeting for the City Council Standing Finance Committee. 6. Side Letter of Agreement between the Saratoga Employees Association and the City of Saratoga Adopting a New Grievance Procedure Recommended action: Adopt the resolution approving the Side Letter of Agreement between the Saratoga Employees Association (SEA) and the City of Saratoga Adopting a New Grievance Procedure 7. Adoption of the Newsrack Ordinance Recommended action: Waive the second reading and adopt the Newsrack Ordinance. 2 8. 2006 Pavement Management Program--Notice of Completion Recommended action: Accept the 2006 Pavement Management Program as complete. 9. Oak Place & Highway 9 Pedestrian Safety Improvements Project--Notice of Completion Recommended action: Accept the Oak Place & Highway 9 Pedestrian Safety Improvements Project as complete. 10. Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program cycle FY 08/09 Application for Saratoga Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project. Recommended action: Adopt resolution supporting the Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program FY 08/09 Application for the Saratoga Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project. 11. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Rehabilitation & Overlay Phase 2 Project (Federal Project STPL-5332-010) – Award of Construction Contract. Recommended action: RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Declare G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. of San Carlos to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2 Award a construction contract to G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. in the amount of $555,480. 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $44,520. 12. Withdrawal of Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract Recommended action: 1. Withdraw the Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract. 2. Authorize the City Clerk to record attached Resolution Withdrawing the Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract. PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council’s approval at the Council meeting 13. Approval of the Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, trail name, and plan implementation. Recommended action: Adopt a resolution approving the Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, trail name, and plan implementation. 3 14. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Recommended action: 1. Review CIP project priorities reflecting Council direction from the CIP Study Session held on September 5th and provide direction to staff. 2. Open the Public Hearing for the F.Y. 07/08 CIP Update. 3. Continue Public Hearing to the November 7, 2007, City Council Meeting to allow review by the Planning Commission for general plan conformance and environmental approvals. OLD BUSINESS 15. Council Discussion Regarding West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board Consideration of Hard-To-Service Rates Effective July 1, 2008 Recommended action: Council Discussion Regarding West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board Consideration of Hard-To-Service Rates Effective July 1, 2008 and provide feedback to the City’s Authority representative. NEW BUSINESS None ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Aileen Kao Association of Bay Area Government Hakone Foundation West Valley Mayors and Managers Association City School AdHoc County HCD Policy Committee Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith Hakone Foundation Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board KSAR SASCC Sister City Liaison Finance Standing Committee Councilmember Chuck Page Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara County Cities Association-Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC) West Valley Sanitation District West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association Village AdHoc Chamber of Commerce AdHoc Finance Standing Committee 4 Councilmember Kathleen King County Cities Association Legislative Task Force Peninsula Division, League of California Cities Santa Clara County Cities Association Valley Transportation Authority PAC City School AdHoc Councilmember Jill Hunter Historic Foundation Library Joint Powers Association Santa Clara County Emergency Council Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission Village AdHoc Chamber of Commerce AdHoc CITY COUNCIL ITEMS OTHER CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 28, 2007, of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 28th day of September 2007at Saratoga, California. Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk Note to public: Please provide the City Clerk with seven (7) copies of any written document that you would like to submit to the City Council in order for it to become part of the public record. 5 NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2007 10/17 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District 11/7 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation 11/20 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office and Fire Districts 11/21 Regular Meeting – Cancelled 12/4 Special Meeting – City Council Reorganization 12/5 Regular Meeting 12/19 Regular Meeting 6 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 1 DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 14-20, 2007 as “Teen Read Week” RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present proclamation. REPORT SUMMARY: The attached proclamation declares the week of October 14-20, 2007 as “Teen Read Week”. Representatives from the Saratoga Library will be present to accept the proclamation. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Proclamation 7 CITY OF SARATOGA PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 14-20, 2007 “TEEN READ WEEK” WHEREAS, the ability to read and process information is a basic survival skill in our global information society; and WHEREAS, the reading proficiency of teens has remained stagnant over the last thirty years; and WHEREAS, the number of students who can read but choose not to do so is increasing; and WHEREAS, the most effective way to improve reading skills is to read regularly and often; and WHEREAS, too few teens think reading is a valuable tool for enjoyment and relaxation as well as for schoolwork; and WHEREAS, regular daily reading for the fun of it creates the reading habit for life; and WHEREAS, parents, teachers, librarians, and all concerned adults can serve as role models by reading for fun themselves; Therefore, be it resolved that I, Mayor Aileen Kao, proclaim October 14-20, 2007, “Teen Read Week” in Saratoga, California and encourage teens to read for the fun of it. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 3rd day of October 2007. _______________________ Aileen Kao, Mayor City of Saratoga 8 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 2 DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Appointment of Heritage Preservation and Traffic Safety Commissioners and Oath of Office RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution appointing one member to the Heritage Preservation Commission and one member to the Traffic Safety Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. REPORT SUMMARY: The attached resolution appoints Hong Tai to the Heritage Preservation Commission and Nancy Kirk to the Traffic Safety Commission. The term for these positions will expire on April 1, 2011. Upon direction from the City Council the Oath of Office will be administered by the City Clerk and signed by the new Commissioners. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The vacancies would not be filled on the Heritage Preservation Commission or the Traffic Safety Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Update City Roster and website. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution of Appointments and Oath of Office 9 RESOLUTION 07- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND ONE MEMBER TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION WHEREAS, City Council conducted interviews on September 19th and September 25th to fill one vacancy on the Heritage Preservation Commission and one vacancy on the Traffic Safety Commission; and WHEREAS, a notice of vacancies was posted, applications were received, interviews have been conducted, and it is now appropriate to fill the vacancies. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the following appointment is made: HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION HONG TAI – APRIL 1, 2011 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION NANCY KIRK – APRIL 1, 2011 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 3rd day of October 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Aileen Kao, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Hong Tai, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. __________________________ Hong Tai, Member Heritage Preservation Commission Subscribed and sworn to before me on This 3rd day of October 2007. _______________________ Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Nancy Kirk, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. __________________________ Nancy Kirk, Member Traffic Safety Commission Subscribed and sworn to before me on This 3rd day of October 2007. _______________________ Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 12 AGENDA ITEM: 3 CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson Karen Caselli DIRECTOR:Mary Furey RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: September 12, 2007 September 19, 2007 REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers for: Date Ending Check No. 9/12/07 106014 106076 63 $146,380.17 9/14/07 9/5/07 106013 9/19/07 106077 106126 50 $121,382.48 9/20/07 9/12/07 106076 Total $267,762.65 AP Date Check # Issued to Dept.Amount 9/12/07 106034 Fac CIP, Dev. Svc., PW $11,505.50 9/12/07 106047 Parks & Trails $10,962.09 9/12/07 106056 PW $17,980.00 9/12/07 106063 Various $14,036.50 9/12/07 106067 CIP $14,812.00 9/12/07 106069 CIP $30,501.40 9/19/07 106084 Environ. Svc.$17,693.04 9/19/07 106086 PW $22,500.00 9/19/07 106096 Various $10,457.14 9/19/07 106125 Dev. Svc.$15,213.69 The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued: There were no Manual or Void Checks for the Accounts Payable dates listed above. City of Campbell Environmental Program Waste Mgt Disp. Overcharge Wittwer & Parkin, LLP General Legal Services Top Grade Construction Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Rehabilitation/Overlay Project Steve Benzing Architect North Campus & Facilites Renovations-North Campus I.M.P.A.C. Gov. Svc. Various Cal Card monthly billing General Cng Sprng/El Quito - Play FieldsColony Landscape Mtc. October 3, 2007 Total Checks Kevin Moran Park The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure: Fehr & Peers LSA Associates, Inc. Fund Type of Checks MEETING DATE: Date San Jose Water Company Various Starting Check No. SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers. Amount Prior Check Register Ending Check No. Purpose DEPARTMENT: PREPARED BY: Utilities -Water Service Saratoga NTMP Checks Released SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL General & North Campus Finance & Administrative Services Accounts Payable General Matt Novakovich Accounts Payable Orchard Maintenance Environmental Consulting C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report13 The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: Fund #AP 9/12 AP 9/19 Total 001 General 77,169.68 77,131.79 154,301.47 150 Streets & Roads - 201 Manor Drive Landscape 120.66 120.66 202 Ferdericksburg Landscape - 203 Greenbriar Landscape - 204 Quito Lighting - 205 Azule Lighting - 206 Sarahills Lighting 89.88 89.88 207 Village Lighting - 209 McCartysville Landscape - 210 Tricia Woods Landscape 32.83 32.83 211 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape - 212 Leutar Court Landscape - 215 Bonnet Way Landscape - 216 Beauchamps Landscape 485.58 485.58 217 Sunland Park Landscape 432.36 432.36 222 Prides Crossing Landscape 1,562.01 1,562.01 224 Village Commercial Landscape 686.86 686.86 225 Saratoga Legends Landscape 391.94 391.94 226 Bellgrove Landscape - 227 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape 113.08 113.08 228 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 1,188.77 1,188.77 229 Tollgate LLD 29.37 29.37 231 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 320.00 228.24 548.24 232 Gateway Landscape 202.87 202.87 233 Carnelian Glen 135.00 97.82 232.82 250 Development Services 8,432.30 8,432.30 260 Environmental Program SRF 17,693.04 17,693.04 270 CDBG Administration - 271 Saratoga Housing & Rehab. Program - 310 Park Dev Cap Proj Fund 2,480.00 2,480.00 320 - 352 Infrastructure - 400 Library Bond Debt Service - 420 Leonard Road - 501 Equipment Replacement ISF - 502 Information Technology - 503 Facility Improvement 5,628.71 3,348.76 8,977.47 504 Facilities 310.31 3,326.64 3,636.95 505 Information Technology 109.70 109.70 506 Office Stores Fund - 510 Liability/Risk Mgt 810.76 810.76 511 Workers' Comp - 604 Planning Deposit Pre 2006 - 701 Traffic Safety 1,082.50 1,082.50 702 Highway 9 Safety - 703 Hakone ADA Improvements - 704 1,059.81 1,059.81 706 Sidewalk Annual Project 2,850.00 2,850.00 707 Aloha Street Safety Improvement - Fund Description Park Dev Capital Project Annual Street Resurfacing C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report14 708 30,988.90 30,988.90 Saratoga Sunnyvale PH 2 C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report15 The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: (continued) Fund #AP 9/12 AP 9/19 Total 716 Highway 9/Oak Pedestrain - 720 KSAR/CATV Agency Fund - 727 El Quito Area Curb Replacement - 728 Book Go Round Drainage - 731 Storm Drain Upgrades - 732 Median Landscape/Irrigation - 734 Civic Center Landscape - 735 Village Lights (Zone 7A)- 736 Village Trees Lighting - 738 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing - 741 Blaney Plaza Improvements - 743 Blaney Plaza Improv./Cnstrc 148.93 148.93 744 Village Sidewalk, Curb/Gutter - 746 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Gateway - 748 El Ca Grante/Monta Vista - 752 861.94 861.94 755 Warner Hutton House Improv.- 758 Civic Center - CDD Offices - 760 250.00 250.00 761 Fire Alarm-McWilliams/Book Go - 762 North Campus/19848 Prospect 15,242.00 15,242.00 766 Historical Park Fire Alarm - 780 Beauchamp Park Fund - 790 UPRR/De Anza Trail - 791 Kevin Moran 10,962.09 10,962.09 792 Alternative Soccer Field - 793 Parks/Trails Repair 1,757.52 1,757.52 146,380.17 121,382.48 267,762.65 - - - ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the Expenditure Approval List format. Document Imaging Project TOTAL Fund Description Facility Projects C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 4 DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant DEPT HEAD: Mary Furey, Finance & Admin Services Director SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended June, 2007 RECOMMENDED ACTION That the City Council accept the monthly Treasurer’s Report. REPORT SUMMARY California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer (the Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035, designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer) submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. 41004. Regularly, at least once each month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. He shall file a copy with the legislative body. Additionally with the passage of Chapter 687, Statutes of 2000 (AB 943 Dutra), effective January 1, 2001 cities are now required to forward copies of their second and fourth quarter calendar year investment portfolio reports to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) within 60 days. The CDIAC will use the report as an additional opportunity to examine public investment practices in a more consistent basis than before. Cities, such as the City of Saratoga, that are 100 percent invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) are exempt from the new investment portfolio reporting requirements and are only required to send a letter to CDIAC indicating the total and composition of their investments. This Treasurer’s Report will satisfy our reporting requirement to the CDIAC. The following attachments provide various financial data and analysis for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to present. FISCAL IMPACT Cash and Investments Balance by Fund With staff’s ongoing review of transactions and adjusting entries in preparation of the closing of fiscal year 2006/07, please note that the cash and fund balance information reported in this Treasurer’s Report for the month ended June 30, 2007 is preliminary and subject to change with year-end closing 31 adjustments and auditor’s review. As of June 30, 2007, the City had $504,053 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, $15,451,914 on deposit with LAIF, and $2,749 in cash with fiscal agents for the Public Financing Authority and Library Bond. Bank reconciliations and operating transfers are completed through the month of June 2007. Council Policy on operating reserve funds adopted on April 20, 1994, states that: for cash flow purposes, to avoid the necessity of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be reduced below $2,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of June 30, 2007 is $15,958,717 and exceeds the limit required. Cash Summary Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank 504,053 Deposit with LAIF 15,451,914 15,955,968 Restricted Cash Fiscal Agents 2,749 2,749 Total 15,958,717$ CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION The City will not be in compliance with Government Code Section 53891 and Section 40804. ALTERNATIVE ACTION N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT N/A ATTACHMENTS A – Cash Balances by Fund B – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund C – Cash and Investments by CIP Project D – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project E – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates 32 ATTACHMENT A The following table summarizes the City’s total cash and investment balances by Fund. Fund Types Fund Description Cash & Investment Balance at June 30, 2007 General General Fund 2,651,394$ Designated Reserves: Petty Cash Reserve 1,300$ Retiree Medical Reserve 62,500$ Economic Uncertainty Reserve 1,500,000$ Operations Reserve 2,554,150$ Special Revenue Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund -$ Highway Users Gas Tax 89,799$ Landscape and Lighting 326,032$ Development Services 1,977,156$ Enviromental Programs 763,673$ Development Fees 117,398$ Community Development Block Grant (18,948)$ SHARP loan 88,578$ Recreation Services 27,851$ Teen Services (36,159)$ CDD Deposits - Pre FY2006 106,300$ CDD Deposits - FY2006 199,041$ Special Revenue O/S Fee Adjustment 14,478$ Capital Project Park Development 210,263$ Library Expansion 298,935$ Public Safety 300,757$ Infrastructure 1,758,703$ Facility 399,469$ Park and Trails 1,365,031$ Debt Service Library Bond 735,869$ Library Bond Financing 1,519$ Internal Service Equipment Replacement 8,573$ IT Replacement 371,482$ Facility Improvement 21,976$ Trust/Agency Leonard Road (3,515)$ Public Financing Authority 1,230$ KSAR - Community Access TV 63,882$ Total City 15,958,717$ 33 ATTACHMENT B CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE The following table presents the ending Fund Balances for the City’s major fund types at June 30, 2007. This table excludes Trust and Agency funds where the City acts merely as a third party custodian of an outside party’s funds. Fund Description 06/30/06 Fund Balance Incr/(Decr) Jul- May Revenues Expenditures Transfers 06/30/07 Fund Balance General General Fund 2,858,113 (1,103,019) 1,628,244 1,111,504 2,271,835 Designated Reserves:- - - - Petty Cash Reserve 1,300 - - - 1,300 Retiree Medical Reserve - 62,500 - - 62,500 CIP Reserve 614,997 (614,997) - - - Economic Uncertainty Reserve 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 Operations Reserve 2,554,150 - - - 2,554,150 Special Revenue SLESF - 100,000 - 100,000 - Highway Users Gas Tax 604,509 (528,435) 489,309 127,067 438,316 Landscape/Lighting Fd 250,321 6,878 123,553 64,674 316,077 Development Services 1,339,563 127,657 243,706 (64,484) 1,775,410 Designated Reserves:- Tree Preservation Ordinance 226 186,644 (17,886) - 21,293 147,465 General Plan Update 7,065 8,290 1,585 16,978 (38) Document Storage - 27,841 574 - 28,415 Environmental Programs 909,760 (115,541) (5,792) 77,759 710,668 CDBG (11,137) 7,297 201,723 197,883 (0) SHARP Loan 75,287 (3,632) 2,932 (15,000) 89,588 Recreation Services (31,783) (2,555) 98,521 97,964 (33,781) Teen Services (38,728) (2,382) 14,776 16,319 (42,653) Capital Project Park Development 91,246 144,462 3,949 30,570 209,087 Library Expansion 704,004 (26,703) 4,924 (2,500) 684,725 Public Safety 554,077 (400,316) 269,833 235,222 34,612 153,760 Infrastructure 1,942,934 (412,767) 105,099 410,213 1,225,053 Facility 96,280 310,785 (281) 28,497 378,287 Park and Trails 196,887 1,224,541 16,873 139,573 1,298,728 Debt Service Library Bond 865,379 (517,435) 399,407 795 746,556 Internal Service Fund Equipment Replacement 247,148 (251,076) 12,500 - 8,572 Technology Replacement 403,520 (27,508) 6,250 29,982 352,280 Facility Improvement 53,546 (13,995) 12,500 37,593 14,458 Total City 15,975,082 (2,017,996) 3,630,184 2,661,900 34,612 14,890,758 34 ATTACHMENT C CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT The following table details the cash balances for each project in the Public Safety, Infrastructure, Facility, and Park and Trails Capital Improvement Project Funds. CIP Funds/Projects Cash & Investment Balance at June 30, 2007 Public Safety Traffic Safety 41,355 Highway 9 Safety Project - Phase I 58,960 Sidewalk-Yearly Project 108,605 Bridges @ 4th Street 100,000 Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign (131,753) Quito Road Bridge Replacement 9,730 Quito Road Bridge Construction 113,859 Total Public Safety 300,757$ Infrastructure Two Solar Power Radar Feedbacks 15,000 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 410,620 Book Go Round Drainage 4,949 Sobey Road Culvert Repair 150,000 Storm Drain Upgrades 11,314 Median Repairs(Landscape/Irrig.)4,021 Civic Center Landscape 63,704 Village Improvements 50,000 Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 7,000 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing Upgrade 75,263 Prospect Road Medians 50,000 City Entrance Sign/Monument 13,467 Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter 737,846 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway 80,198 Storm Drain @ El Camino/Mt Vista 85,321 Total Infrastructure 1,758,703 Facility Warner Hutton House Improv 29,730 Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Book Go Round 25,000 North Campus - 19848 Prospect Road 338,196 Historical Park Fire Alarm System 6,543 Total Facility 399,469 Parks & Trails Hakone Garden D/W 164,283 Deanza Trail (142,045) Kevin Moran Park 1,133,757 Alternative Soccer Field 157,453 Park/Trail Repairs 45,643 CIP Allocation Fund 5,939 Total Parks & Trails 1,365,031$ Total CIP Funds 3,823,959$ 35 ATTACHMENT D FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT The following table details the fund balances for each project in the Public Safety, Infrastructure, Facility, and Park and Trails Capital Improvement Project Funds. CIP Funds/Projects 06/30/06 Fund Balance Incr/(Decr) Jul- May Revenues Expenditures Transfers 06/30/07 Fund Balance Public Safety Traffic Safety 67,568 (25,780) - 433 41,355 Highway 9 Safety Project 100,000 (41,040) - - 58,960 Hakone ADA Improvement - (88,454) 169,798 81,344 - Sidewalks Yearly Project 185,001 (94,294) 18,691 793 108,605 Aloha Street Safety Improvement (57,529) 10,797 81,344 - 34,612 0 Bridges @ 4th Street 100,000 - - - 100,000 Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign 31,845 (161,545) - 35,191 (164,891) Quito Road Bridge Replacement 127,192 - - 117,462 9,730 Quito Road Bridge Construction - - 113,859 - 113,859 Total Public Safety 554,077 (400,316) 269,833 235,222 34,612 153,760 Infrastructure Two Solar Power Radar Feedbacks - 15,000 - - 15,000 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 460,264 (49,644) - 245,621 164,999 Book Go Round Drainage - 22,721 - 22,721 - Sobey Road Culvert Repair - 150,000 - - 150,000 Storm Drain Upgrades 167,864 (101,082) - 55,468 11,314 Median Repairs(Landscape/Irrig.)20,000 (8,505) - 7,474 4,021 Civic Center Landscape 104,325 (40,621) - 1 63,703 Village Improvements - 50,000 - - 50,000 Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 7,000 (77) - (77) 7,000 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing Upgrade - (196,397) 50,139 55,508 (201,766) Prospect Road Median - - 50,000 - 50,000 Signage @ City Entrance 13,467 - - - 13,467 Blaney Plaza Improvement - Contruction 99,787 (98,839) - 948 - Village-Streetscape Impv (Sidewalk, Curbs) 738,624 (4,960) 4,960 778 737,846 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway 231,603 (150,363) - 7,093 74,148 Storm Drain @ El Camino / Mt Vista 100,000 - - 14,679 85,321 Total Infrastructure 1,942,934 (412,767) 105,099 410,213 - 1,225,053 Facility WHH Improvements 74,737 (40,410) - 9,326 25,000 Civic Center - CDD Offices 15,000 (15,000) - - - Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Book Go Round - 25,000 - - 25,000 North Campus - 19848 Prospect Road - 341,196 - 19,170 322,025 Historical Park Fire Alarm System 6,543 - (281) - 6,262 Total Facility 96,280 310,785 (281) 28,497 - 378,287 Parks & Trails Hakone Garden D/W 164,283 - - - 164,283 DeAnza Trail (49,066) (9,049) (72,537) 53,566 (184,219) Kevin Moran Improvements 46,468 1,091,334 - 25,504 1,112,298 Alternative Soccer Field - 157,453 - 1,585 155,868 Park/Trail Repairs 35,202 (15,197) - (24,554) 44,558 CIP Allocation Fund - - 89,411 83,471 5,939 Total Parks & Trails 196,887 1,224,541 16,873 139,573 - 1,298,728 Total CIP Funds 2,790,178 722,243 391,523 813,504 34,612 3,055,829 36 ATTACHMENT E 37 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 5 DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Establishing a Time and Place for Regular Meeting for the Council Finance Standing Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution establishing the time and place for regular meeting for the Council Finance Standing Committee. REPORT SUMMARY: At the September 5, 2007 City Council meeting, Council established the Council Finance Standing Committee. Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith and Councilmember Chuck Page were appointed to serve on this Committee. In compliance with the Brown Act a time and place must be established for regular meetings of the Council Finance Standing Committee. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Council Finance Standing Committee would be in violation of the Brown Act. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Update City Roster and website. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: 38 Attachment A – Staff Report from September 5, 2007 – Establishment of Council Finance Standing Committee Attachment B – Resolution establishing the time and place for regular meetings for the Council Finance Standing Committee RESOLUTION NO. 07- 39 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING A TIME AND PLACE FOR REGULAR MEETINGS FOR THE COUNCIL FINANCE STANDING COMMITTEE WHEREAS, on September 5, 2007 the Saratoga City Council established the Council Finance Standing Committee; and WHEREAS, the Council Finance Standing Committee must establish a regular time to conduct its meetings in compliance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54952 and following) and abide by State law; and WHEREAS, the Finance Committee held their first meeting on September 19, 2007 and unanimously voted to meet on a monthly or semi-monthly basis, as determined by the Committee members in the prior Finance Committee meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Finance Committee of the City of Saratoga that pursuant to Code Section 54954, the time and place for the regular meetings of the Finance Committee shall be as follows: DATE: FIRST OR THIRD WEDNESDAY TIME: 4:00 P.M. FREQUENCY: MONTHLY OR SEMI-MONTHLY PLACE: ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of October 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Aileen Kao, Mayor ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 40 41 42 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 6 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell, DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson Assistant City Manager Monica LaBossiere, Human Resources Manager __________ SUBJECT: Side Letter of Agreement between the Saratoga Employees Association and the City of Saratoga Adopting a New Grievance Procedure __________ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt the resolution approving the Side Letter of Agreement between the Saratoga Employees Association (SEA) and the City of Saratoga Adopting a New Grievance Procedure. REPORT SUMMARY: At its August 1, 2007 meeting, the City Council approved a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and SEA. In addition, the City Council agreed to consider a Side Letter of Agreement between the City and SEA, concerning the Grievance Procedure contained in the SEA MOU. On August 1, 2007, the City approved a new MOU with SEA. Subsequently, on September 5, 2007 the City approved a new MOU with the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, Carpenters Forty Six Counties Conference Board and Their Affiliated Local Unions (Union) that contained a Grievance Procedure different from the one included in the SEA MOU. At the same meeting, the City Council approved a Side Letter of Agreement providing for a reopening of negotiations between the City and SEA for the purpose of giving SEA an opportunity to review the grievance procedure included in the Union MOU and, if SEA deemed it preferable, to meet and discuss revising the SEA MOU to include the new grievance procedure language. City staff subsequently met with SEA, and SEA’s representatives indicated they would like to adopt the Grievance Procedure included in the Union MOU and include it in the SEA MOU. The attached Side Letter of Agreement between SEA and the City adopts and incorporates the Grievance Procedure included in the Union MOU into the SEA MOU. 43 FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Choose not to accept the Side Letter of Agreement. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will execute the Side Letter of Agreement and implement its elements. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution to adopt the Side Letter of Agreement between the City and SEA Side Letter of Agreement between the City and SEA Adopting the New Grievance Procedure 44 RESOLUTION NO. ____________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING A SIDE LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SEA) AND THE CITY OF SARATOGA (CITY) ADOPTING A NEW GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga, through its designated representatives and pursuant to State law, has met and conferred with the organized representative organization, the Saratoga Employees Association (SEA), concerning proposals for modifications and changes to salaries, benefits and other matters; and WHEREAS, the representatives of the City and SEA have reached an understanding regarding changes in salaries, benefits and other matters for the period beginning July 1, 2007, through September 30, 2011, for employees represented by SEA; and WHEREAS, the members of SEA have ratified the MOU and the City Council approved the MOU on August 1, 2007; and WHEREAS, members of the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, Carpenters Forty Six Counties Conference Board and Their Affiliated Local Unions (UNION) subsequently ratified a MOU with a different Grievance Procedure than the one contained in the SEA MOU, and the City Council approved the MOU on September 5, 2007; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2007, the City and SEA entered into a Side Letter of Agreement to the SEA MOU providing for a reopener on the Grievance Procedure contained in the SEA MOU, giving SEA an opportunity to review the grievance procedure included in the Union MOU and, if SEA deemed it preferable, to meet and discuss revising the SEA MOU to include the new grievance procedure language; and WHEREAS, representatives of the City and SEA met and discussed the Grievance Procedure included in the Union MOU, and the members of SEA have determined they desire to adopt, via a new Side Letter of Agreement with the City, the Grievance Procedure included in the Union MOU and include it in the SEA MOU. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the terms and conditions of the Side Letter of Agreement Adopting a New Grievance Procedure in the SEA MOU, dated the 3rd of October, 2007, is hereby approved. 45 4 of 4 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the 3rd of October 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Aileen Kao, MAYOR ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, CITY CLERK 46 47 48 49 50 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 7 DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Adoption of the Newsrack Ordinance (CONSENT ITEM) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Waive the Second Reading and adopt the Newsrack Ordinance. BACKGROUND: On September 19, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing, introduced the ordinance, and voted to place the ordinance on consent for adoption. FISCAL IMPACTS: Costs associated with program administration may be recovered through fees adopted in the Fee Schedule. In addition, the ordinance would require a deposit sufficient to cover the costs of abatement if the newsrack is ultimately abandoned. Staff will come back to the City Council with a staff report recommending the change to the fee schedule and the final design and costs associated with the newsrack encasements. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City cannot enforce against placement of newsracks without the ordinance in effect. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Deny the proposed ordinance; 2. Modify the proposed ordinance. FOLLOW UP ACTION: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Newsrack Ordinance Page 1 of 10 51 Page 2 of 10 ATTACHMENT – 1. ORDINANCE __________ AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 10-40 TO THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO NEWSRACKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption. Article 10-40 is added to the Saratoga City Code to read: 10-40.010 Purpose and Findings The purpose of these regulations is to acknowledge and achieve the following: a. There is a substantial governmental interest in promoting the public health, safety, welfare and convenience by ensuring that persons may reasonably use the public streets, sidewalks, rights-of-way, and other public property without interference with such use and by ensuring that the streets are maintained in an aesthetically pleasing manner that avoids congestion and clutter of structures on sidewalks and other public rights of way. b. Newsracks placed and maintained on the streets, sidewalks or other public rights-of-way, absent some reasonable regulation, can under certain circumstances unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of such streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way, and present hazards to persons or property. c. The streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way are historically associated with the distribution of newspapers and other publications, and access to and use of these areas for such purposes is not to be denied except where such use unreasonably interferes with the use of these areas by pedestrians or traffic, where such use presents a hazard to persons or property, or where such use is carried out in a manner that creates congestion and clutter or detracts from the design of the surrounding streetscape. d. Reasonable accommodation of these competing interests can be achieved by adoption of this Article, which imposes time, place or manner restrictions which regulate the placement and maintenance of newsracks. e. The public health, safety, welfare and convenience require that: 1. Interference with vehicular, bicycle, wheelchair or pedestrian traffic be avoided; 2. Obstruction of sight, distance and views of vehicular traffic, traffic signs and street- crossing pedestrians be eliminated; 3. Damage done to sidewalks or streets be minimized and repaired; 4. The good appearance of the public streets and grounds be maintained; 5. Trees and other landscaping be allowed to grow without disturbance; 6. Access to emergency and other public facilities be maintained; and 7. Ingress and egress from properties adjoining the public rights-of-way be protected. g. The regulation of the distribution of newspapers and other publications dispensed in newsracks as set forth in this Article provides the least intrusive and burdensome means for ensuring the purposes stated in this section are carried out while still providing ample opportunities for the distribution of news and other printed matter to the residents of the City. This Article applies only to newsracks on public property and does not apply on private property. 52 Page 3 of 10 10-40.020 Definitions For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: a. Abandoned newsrack means any newsrack which contains no printed material supplied by the newsrack permittee for fourteen consecutive calendar days, except that a newsrack remaining empty due to a labor strike or any temporary and extraordinary interruption of distribution or publication by the newspaper or other publication distributed from that newsrack shall not be deemed abandoned. b. Newsrack Permit Administrator means an employee of the City of Saratoga working within the Community Development Department and designated by the Community Development Director to manage and process the implementation and enforcement of a violation under this Article. c. Newsrack Appeal Officer means the Director of the Community Development Department authorized to hear appeals of decisions of the Newsrack Permit Administrator. d. Newsrack means any box, container, storage unit, or other dispenser installed, used or maintained for the display and distribution of newspapers, periodicals or other printed matter. Newsrack includes both modular newsracks, which have more than one opening, and single newsracks, which have only one opening. e. Newsrack encasement means a City owned and maintained, modular receptacle inside which one or more privately owned newsracks may be placed. The newsrack encasement shall be large enough to accommodate a newsrack which complies with the standards of this Article, be permanently affixed to the ground or the side of a wall or other structure and be of a design which is architecturally compatible with the surrounding area. f. Public right-of-way has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 15-06.570 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. g. Roadway has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 9-10.150 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. h. Sidewalk has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 9-10.160 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. i. Single-slot opening means an individual opening within a modular newsrack. j. Street has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 9-10.180 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. k. Village has the same meaning as that term is defined in section 15-06.710 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. 10-40.030 Newsrack Permit Required No person shall place or cause to be placed a newsrack on public right-of-way unless such person (1) obtains a newsrack permit from the Newsrack Permit Administrator and (2) complies with all requirements of this Article. 10-40.040 Permit Requirements and Standards a. General. A newsrack permit is applicable only for the newsrack(s) and location(s) described in the permit. 53 Page 4 of 10 b. Duration. A newsrack permit shall be valid for one year and shall be renewable annually. c. Permit Application. The newsrack permit application shall state the name, address and telephone number of those responsible for installation, use and maintenance of the newsracks, and shall describe, with particularity, the model and design of the newsrack(s) and the location(s) proposed for installation. Contact information must be updated by the applicant within ten (10) days of any change. d. Review of Permit Application. The Newsrack Permit Administrator shall review each application to determine whether each proposed newsrack complies with the requirements of this Article. The Newsrack Permit Administrator shall, within thirty days of receipt of the permit application, either issue a newsrack permit or deny the application, in whole or in part, and notify the applicant in writing of the decision. If the application is denied, this notification shall include an explanation of the reasons for denial. A denial may be appealed in accordance with this Article. The authorization for any newsrack included in a newsrack permit shall be of no further force and effect if that newsrack becomes an abandoned newsrack. e. Amendments. A newsrack permit may be amended from time to time upon application for an amendment containing the information described in subsection (c), above, for each additional newsrack or location to be the subject of the permit. The Newsrack Permit Administrator shall review such applications in accordance with subsection (d), above. f. Encroachment Permits. A newsrack permit issued pursuant to this Article shall operate as an encroachment permit and no separate permit pursuant to Article 10-20 of this Code shall be required. g. Fees. If a newsrack permit fee has been established by the City Council no newsrack permit shall take effect until payment by the applicant of said fee. Any fee or fees adopted by the City Council shall not exceed the costs of processing permit applications, amendments and renewals, as well as the costs of maintaining newsrack encasements and enforcing this Article. The Newsrack Permit Administrator may also require a bond or other form of security in an amount reasonably necessary to ensure removal of each newsrack authorized by the newsrack permit in the manner required by this Article. h. Permit not a Bar to Enforcement. The issuance of a newsrack permit under this Article shall not prevent the City from subsequently enforcing this Article, if a violation is later found to exist. 10-40.050 Indemnification and Insurance Requirements a. Indemnification. Every newsrack permit holder shall agree, prior to the effectiveness of the newsrack permit, to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees from any loss, liability, damage or cost sustained by any person or property, arising from the installation, operation or use of such newsrack; provided, however, that such obligation to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees shall not extend to any loss, liability damage or cost resulting from the acts or property of another. b. Liability Insurance. Each newsrack permit holder shall, prior to the effectiveness of the newsrack permit, furnish to the City a certificate showing that the permit holder has then in force public liability and property damage insurance naming the City as an additional insured in an amount of not less than $250,000 minimum liability combined single limit (bodily injury and property damage) per person and per occurrence. The permit holder shall provide and keep in force that policy of public liability insurance during such time as it continues to own, operate, use, or maintain any newsrack on a public right-of-way in the City. The evidence of insurance filed with the City shall include a statement by the insurance carrier that 30 days’ notice will be given to the City before any cancellation. 54 Page 5 of 10 10-40.060 Design Standards for Newsracks a. Newsrack Models. Each newsrack shall be substantially equivalent to a 49-16 or 100 style (as manufactured by "Sho-Rack"), a KJ50/KJ55F (as manufactured by "K-Jack"), a M-30/M-33 (as manufactured by "National Newsvend"), a "armorhood 80 style" rack, or a "Ganset" rack, as determined by the Newsrack Permit Administrator consistent with the provisions of this section. b. Size Requirements. No newsrack shall be installed in a public right-of-way that does not meet the approved newsrack dimensions of not more than fifty-four (54) inches high including the pedestal measured from the ground to the top surface of the newsrack, not more than two (2) feet deep and not more than thirty (30) inches wide. c. Dangerous Design Prohibited. The design of a newsrack shall not create a danger to the persons using the newsrack in a reasonably foreseeable manner. d. Installation Standards. All newsracks shall be pedestal mounted and shall be permanently affixed to the ground, except as permitted under this Article. Newsracks shall not be chained or otherwise attached to a bus shelter, bench, street light, utility pole or sign pole, to any other single or modular newsrack, or to any tree, shrub or other plant. e. Height Requirements. The highest operable part of the coin slot, if provided for the newsrack, and all controls, dispensers and other operable components of newsracks shall not be greater than forty-eight (48) inches above the level of the adjacent pavement or sidewalk, nor lower than fifteen (15) inches above the level of the adjacent pavement or sidewalk. f. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is intended that the provisions of this Article shall be interpreted and applied consistent with accessibility standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P.L. 101-336, as amended. g. Color Requirements. The color of all newsracks shall be tones of brown. h. Advertising. A newsrack may display the logo or name of the publication it offers for distribution. A newsrack must also display the identification label required by section 10- 40.090(d). No other advertising or displays are allowed on the exterior of a newsrack. i. Newsrack Encasement Designs. The City may establish newsrack encasements in various parts of the City (e.g., the Village area). The City will consult with and consider any applicable design guidelines regarding the design, location, and size of the newsrack encasements. 10-40.070 Location Standards for Newsracks a. Location Standards. Newsracks shall comply with the following standards: 1. Permissible Locations. Newsracks shall only be placed near a curb or adjacent to the wall of a building, unless in a City approved encasement. The back of newsracks placed near the curb shall be placed no less than eighteen inches nor more than twenty-four inches from the edge of the curb. The back of newsracks placed adjacent to the wall of a building shall be placed parallel to such wall and not more than six inches from the wall. No newsrack shall be placed or maintained on a sidewalk or parkway opposite another newsrack or a kiosk which distributes primarily newspapers, periodicals or other publications. 2. Roadways and Streets. No person shall install, stock, or maintain any newsrack which projects onto, into or over any part of the roadway or street of any public right-of-way, or which rests, wholly or in part, upon, along or over any portion of a roadway or street. 3. Prohibited Locations. No newsrack shall be placed, installed, used or maintained: a. Within ten feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk as measured from the curb return; 55 Page 6 of 10 b. Within five feet of any fire hydrant, fire callbox, police callbox, or other emergency facility; c. Within five feet of any driveway. d. Within five feet of any bus bench; e. Within five feet of any red curb of a bus stop zone; f. Within five feet of any blue curb or a disabled parking zone; g. In such a manner as to obstruct pedestrian or driver views of traffic signs or oncoming traffic; h. At any location where the clear space for the passage of pedestrians is reduced to less than six feet; i. In such a manner as to impede or interfere with the reasonable use of any commercial window display; j. Within fifteen feet of the curb return of any wheelchair curb ramp not in a marked crosswalk; k. Within a landscaped area; l. In such a manner as to unreasonably obstruct or interfere with access to or the use and enjoyment of abutting property. 4. Other Prohibited Locations. No person shall install, stock, or maintain any newsrack which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any sidewalk, when such installation, use or maintenance either (1) endangers the safety of persons or property, (2) is in a location used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other government use, or (3) unreasonably interferes with or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, including handicapped access, the ingress into or egress from any residence, place of business, or the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, postal service collection boxes or other objects permitted at or near such location. b. Limitations on Proximity of Newsracks. Newsracks shall be placed next to each other whenever feasible. However, no group of newsracks placed along a curb shall extend for a distance of more than eleven (11) feet. A newsrack may not be located on the same block within fifty (50) feet of a group of newsracks unless there is no other suitable location within one hundred (100) feet of the proposed location, in which case it may be located no less than four feet from that existing group of newsracks. c. Use of Newsrack Encasements. Where a newsrack encasement has been provided by the City at a given location, and there is available space in that newsrack encasement, no newsracks may be installed outside of the newsrack encasement on the same block as the encasement. If adequate space in existing newsrack encasements does not exist, the City shall construct a new or expanded newsrack encasement within 30 days or shall permit the applicant to install a newsrack adjacent to the newsrack encasement until such time as the City constructs a new or expanded newsrack encasement. 10-40.080 Special Newsrack Regulations in the Village a. Findings. The City has determined that the Village is a unique, historic area of the City. Because of numerous complaints from merchants in the Village, and in light of the special aesthetic concerns and the extensive pedestrian use of the area, special regulation of newsracks in the Village is necessary. In light of the unique conditions in the Village the City will install newsrack encasements in the Village. b. Use of Newsrack Encasements Mandatory. Within the Village, no newsrack may be located except within a newsrack encasement. If adequate space in existing newsrack encasements does not exist, the City shall construct a new or expanded newsrack encasement 56 Page 7 of 10 within 30 days or shall permit the applicant to install a newsrack adjacent to the newsrack encasement until such time as the City constructs a new or expanded newsrack encasement. 10-40.090 Maintenance and Removal a. Regular Maintenance Required. Each newsrack shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition and in good repair at all times. For example, without limitation, the newsrack shall be reasonably free of dirt and grease, be reasonably free of chipped, faded, peeling or cracked paint, be reasonably free of rust and corrosion, have no broken or cracked plastic or glass parts, and have no broken structural parts. b. Adhesive Labels Prohibited. Adhesive labels, other than City issued identification/approval labels and advertising permitted pursuant to section 10-40.060(h) shall not be displayed on newsracks. c. Coin-Return Mechanisms. Each newsrack which requires the deposit of money to obtain the publication shall be equipped with a coin-return mechanism to permit persons using the machine to secure a refund in the event they are unable to receive the publication paid for. The coin-return mechanism shall be maintained in good working order. d. Contact Information. Every person maintaining a newsrack under the terms of this Article shall have his or her name, current address, and telephone number (updated within ten (10) days of any changes) and permit number affixed to it in a place where such information will be readily visible and shall include, with such identification, instructions on how to receive a refund in the event of coin-return malfunctions. e. Removal. Upon the removal of a newsrack, the public right-of-way shall be returned to its original condition including but not limited to the refilling of holes installed for purposes of securing the newsrack. Any bond or security furnished to the City in connection with a newsrack permit shall be returned to the newsrack owner upon removal of a newsrack in accordance with this section. 10-40.100 Display of Certain Material Prohibited No person shall sell, offer for sale, keep or maintain for sale, or distribute, or place or maintain harmful matter, as such term is defined in Section 313 of the Penal Code of California, in any newsrack on any public right-of-way. 10-40.110 Enforcement and Abatement a. Declaration of Public Nuisance. Any newsrack in violation of this article shall constitute a public nuisance. b. Removal of Newsracks. Abandoned newsracks, any newsrack not authorized by a newsrack permit that remains in effect, and any other newsrack otherwise in violation of this Article may be removed by designated City employees as provided in this section. c. Notice Required. Before any newsrack is removed, the owner shall be provided notice of the violation and the City’s intent to remove the newsrack. Notice shall be provided by posting on the newsrack. For newsracks authorized by a newsrack permit, notice also shall be mailed to the address for notice provided in the newsrack permit. The notice shall list the code sections being violated and shall provide the owner fourteen (14) days from the date of the notice to remedy the violation or file an appeal. The notice shall state the address and location to file an appeal of the notice of violation and intent to remove. 57 Page 8 of 10 d. Opportunity to Contest Removal. Any person notified under this Article may file a request for reconsideration of the notice of violation and intent to remove with the Newsrack Permit Administrator. The Newsrack Permit Administrator shall set a time for a meeting with the appellant at least three (3) but not more than ten (10) business days following receipt of the request for reconsideration. The meeting shall be informal, but oral and written evidence may be given by both sides. Any action by the City with respect to the alleged violation shall be stayed pending the decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator following the meeting, which decision shall be rendered in writing no later than ten (10) business days after the meeting. The Newsrack Permit Administrator may give oral notice of the decision at the close of the meeting, but shall give written notice, as well, of all decisions. A decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator may be appealed as provided in section 10-40.120 of this Article. e. Removal. The City may remove a newsrack if, following issuance of the notice of violation and intent to remove, the person responsible for the newsrack has (1) not timely filed a request for reconsideration with the Newsrack Permit Administrator or (2) not timely remedied the violation. If a request for reconsideration has been filed the City may remove the newsrack that was the subject of the request for reconsideration fourteen (14) days after the request for reconsideration or appeal was denied if no further appeal has been filed with either the Newsrack Appeal Officer or the City Council. Within three (3) days of removing said newsrack the City shall notify the permit holder, if any, of the removal and of the opportunity to recover the newsrack within 45 days of the date of removal. Where the newsrack was placed without a permit the City shall provide notice to any persons provided notice in connection with the initial notice of violation and intent to remove and any persons who filed an appeal of said notice. f. Summary Removal for Dangerous Newsracks. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, prior notice of removal is not required where the newsrack poses a danger to pedestrians or vehicles. The City shall, within three (3) days of removing said newsrack, provide notice and an opportunity to contest the removal of the newsrack in substantial compliance with the provisions of this section. g. Recovery of Removed Newsracks. Removed newsracks shall be retained and may be recovered by their owner within forty-five days of their removal. The owner shall pay an impound fee recovering the actual cost to the City of removing, transporting, and storing said newsrack. Newsracks removed by the City shall be retained within the City of Saratoga. Newsracks which are not claimed within forty-five days shall be deemed permanently abandoned and shall be disposed of. If a bond or other security has been filed with the City in connection with a newsrack that has been removed, said bond or security shall be paid to the City. No recovery fee shall be required of an owner of a newsrack for which the City has recovered a bond or other security. h. City Recovery of Costs. The cost of investigating, removing and storing newsracks under this Section shall be chargeable as a civil debt to the owner thereof and may be collected by the City in the same manner as it collects other civil debts or obligations, provided, however, that no costs shall be chargeable for any amount recovered by the City pursuant to a bond or other security filed in connection with a newsrack. i. Remedies Cumulative. The enforcement and abatement provisions provided in this section are a cumulative remedy and supplement the City’s ability to enforce this provision under other procedures specified in this Code. Abatement under this section does not constitute a defense to any proceedings which may be employed simultaneously pursuant to the general provisions of this Code. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit any right or remedy otherwise available in law or equity to any party harmed by a newsrack, nor shall this Article in any way limit the City’s right to enforcement under any other provision of this Code or create a duty or obligation on the part of the City to enforce this Article. 58 Page 9 of 10 10-40.120 Appeals a. Appeals of Permit Denials. If a permit application is denied by the Newsrack Permit Administrator, the applicant shall have ten calendar days within which to appeal that decision to the Newsrack Appeal Officer. The Newsrack Appeal Officer shall conduct a de novo review the decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator. The review shall be informal, but oral and written evidence may be given by both sides. If the denial of the permit application is upheld by the Newsrack Appeal Officer, the applicant may appeal that decision to the City Council, in accordance with the appeals provisions of Section 2-05.030 of this Code. b. Appeals of Removal Orders. If the Newsrack Permit Administrator denies a request for reconsideration of a decision to remove a newsrack under section 10-40.110, the applicant shall have ten calendar days within which to appeal that decision to the Newsrack Appeal Officer. The Newsrack Appeal Officer shall conduct a de novo review the decision of the Newsrack Permit Administrator. The review shall be informal, but oral and written evidence may be given by both sides. If the removal order is upheld by the Newsrack Appeal Officer, the applicant may appeal that decision to the City Council, in accordance with the appeals provisions of Section 2- 05.030 of this Code. 10-40.130 Compliance Period Every pre-existing newsrack located within a public right of way in the City shall comply with all provisions of this Article and obtain a newsrack permit within three (3) months of the date the City Council adopts a notice of completion confirming that the newsrack encasements in the Village have been completed or be voluntarily removed. Thereafter, any newsrack not in compliance shall be subject to enforcement as provided in section 10-40.120. Every new newsrack proposed in the City after the notice of completion has been adopted shall comply with the provisions of this Article. Nothing contained herein shall limit the City’s authority to remove newsracks that are a threat to public safety during the three month compliance period. Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (the amendment is exempt because it assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment). Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or part of this article is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this article and the remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. 59 Page 10 of 10 The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 19th day of September, 2007, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 3rd day of October, 2007: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: ____________________________ _____________________________ Aileen Kao, Cathleen Boyer, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY 60 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3rd, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 8 DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Morgan Kessler DIRECTOR: John Cherbone SUBJECT: 2006 Pavement Management Program-Notice of Completion ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Move to accept the 2006 Pavement Management Program as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. REPORT SUMMARY: All work for the 2006 Pavement Management Program has been completed by the City’s contractor, El Camino Paving, Inc., and has been inspected by Public Works staff. A very large amount of asphalt-related work was successfully completed under this contract, including the Pierce Road intersection, and the repaving of multiple residential streets. An important portion of the contract where El Camino Paving proved to be extremely helpful and accommodating was during the time when UPRR performed their road crossing work. During this three week time period, City staff needed to have a paving crew on-hand in the evenings, ready to restore the roadway on a moment’s notice once the railroad was finished with their construction activities. El Camino Paving not only readily made them selves available after normal work hours on very short notice, they did so under reasonable financial terms. The original contract award amount was $706,500.00, with change order authority of $100,000. In order to address additional work that arose during the course of the contract in a timely and efficient manner, two contract extensions were issued. The final contract amount of $1,082,489.31 is within the Council approved budget. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one-year maintenance/warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30-day Stop Notice for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. FISCAL IMPACTS: Page 1 of 3 61 There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover final payment. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contracts and release the contract sureties and retentions thirty days thereafter. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion for the Hwy. 9 & Oak Place Pedestrian Safety Improvements project Page 2 of 3 62 Page 3 of 3 Recording requested by, And to be returned to: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed and performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 3rd day of October, 2007. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: August 2nd, 2006 Contractor’s Name: El Camino Paving, Inc. Contractor’s Address: 924 San Rafael Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94088-2319 Description of Work: 2006 Pavement Management Program Notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on the information or belief, as to those matters the he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on___________________, 2007. CITY OF SARATOGA BY:____________________________ ATTEST:____________________________ Dave Anderson Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk City Manager Gov. Code 40814 63 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3rd, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 9 DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Morgan Kessler DIRECTOR: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Hwy 9 & Oak Place Pedestrian Safety Improvements-Notice of Completion ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Move to accept the Hwy. 9 & Oak Place Pedestrian Safety Improvement project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. REPORT SUMMARY: All work for the Hwy. 9 & Oak Place Pedestrian Safety Improvements project has been completed by the City’s contractor, George Bianchi Construction, Inc., and has been inspected by Public Works staff. This project proceeded relatively smoothly, and staff is quite satisfied with the final product’s quality and workmanship. Overall, this project provides greatly improved pedestrian access for a very busy intersection. The original contract award amount was $184,101.00, with change order authority of $15,000. With no change orders generated for this project, the final construction contract amount was $184,101. The final amounts are summarized as follows: Original Contract Amount: $184,101.00 Original Change Order Authority $15,500.00 Final Project Budget, Including Change Orders $199,601.00 Final Contract Amount: $184,101.00 In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one-year maintenance/warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30-day Stop Notice for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. Page 1 of 3 64 FISCAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient funds in the CIP project budget to cover final payment. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contracts and release the contract sureties and retentions thirty days thereafter. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion for the Hwy. 9 & Oak Place Pedestrian Safety Improvements project Page 2 of 3 65 Page 3 of 3 Recording requested by, And to be returned to: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed and performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 3rd day of October, 2007. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: September 6th, 2006 Contractor’s Name: George Bianchi Construction. Contractor’s Address: 775-A Mabury Road, San Jose CA 95133 Description of Work: Hwy. 9 & Oak Place Pedestrian Safety Improvements project Notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on the information or belief, as to those matters the he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on___________________, 2007. CITY OF SARATOGA BY:____________________________ ATTEST:____________________________ Dave Anderson Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk City Manager Gov. Code 40814 66 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 10 DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Macedonio Nunez DIRECTOR: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program cycle FY 08/09 Application for Saratoga Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution supporting the Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program FY 08/09 Application for the Saratoga Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project. REPORT SUMMARY: In April 2007, Public Works staff applied for CMAQ funds connected to the CDT Capital Grant Program administrated by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). VTA has awarded the City a grant in the amount of $425,000 for the Saratoga Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project. These Capital grants are intended to help Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) member agencies design and build transit and pedestrian friendly projects related to transit facilities, streets, and core areas such as downtowns. The application was submitted to the VTA in April 2007. The CDT grant requested in the application was $500,000 from a total estimated project cost of $678,000.00. VTA asked local agencies who’s scores were top ranked to refine their project estimates in order to overcome a short fall in available funds. A revised/refined estimate was submitted to VTA in May 2007 with a new CDT fund request of $425,000 with a local match required by VTA in the amount of $115,000. FISCAL IMPACTS: The City Council directed staff at the CIP study session to fund the local match from the Village Sidewalk Project. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The project will not be approved by MTC and the funds will be reallocated to other cities in Santa Clara County. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A Page 1 of 2 67 Page 2 of 2 FOLLOW UP ACTION: Resolution will be forwarded to the MTC. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution of Local Support authorizing the filing of an application with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and/ or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding. 68 Resolution of Local Support SAFETEA STP/CMAQ Funding Resolution No. Authorizing the filing of an application for federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and/or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding and committing the necessary non-federal match and stating the assurance to complete the project WHEREAS, CITY OF SARATOGA (herein referred as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $425,000.00 in funding from the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and/or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program for the Saratoga Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project (herein referred as PROJECT) for the MTC Third Cycle STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy, Resolution 3723 (herein referred as PROGRAM); and WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA) (Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005) continues the Surface Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. § 133) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149); and WHEREAS, pursuant to SAFETEA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal Surface Transportation Program and/or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (STP/CMAQ) funds for a project shall submit an application first with the appropriate Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), for review and inclusion in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of STP/CMAQ funds; and WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible project sponsor for STP/CMAQ funds; and WHEREAS, as part of the application for STP/CMAQ funding, MTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following: 1) the commitment of necessary local matching funds of at least 11.47%; and 2) that the sponsor understands that the STP/CMAQ funding is fixed at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with additional STP/CMAQ funds; and 3) that the project will comply with the procedures specified in Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and 4) the assurance of the sponsor to complete the project as described in the application, and if approved, as included in MTC's TIP; and 5) that the project will comply with all the project-specific requirements as set forth in Third Cycle STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy. 1 69 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that CITY OF SARATOGA is authorized to execute and file an application for funding under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) of SAFETEA for Saratoga Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project; and be it further RESOLVED that the APPLICANT by adopting this resolution does hereby state that: 1. APPLICANT will provide ($48,750.00) in non-federal matching funds; and 2. APPLICANT understands that the STP/CMAQ funding for the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional STP/CMAQ funding; and 3. APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, as revised); and 4. PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution and, if approved, for the amount programmed in the MTC federal TIP; and 5. APPLICANT and the PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in Third Cycle STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy; and therefore be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of STP/CMAQ funded projects; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for STP/CMAQ funds for the PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for STP/CMAQ funding for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in the resolution and to include the PROJECT, if approved, in MTC's TIP. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 3rd day of October, 2007 by the following vote: 2 70 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ A i l e e n K a o , M a y o r ATTEST: _____________________________ Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 71 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 11 DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Macedonio Nunez DIRECTOR: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Rehabilitation & Overlay Phase 2 Project (Federal Project STPL-5332-010) – Award of Construction Contract. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Move to declare G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. of San Carlos to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Move to award a construction contract to G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. in the amount of $555,480. 3. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $44,520. REPORT SUMMARY: Sealed bids for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Rehabilitation & Overlay Phase 2 Project were opened on Monday, September 24th. A total of ten contractors submitted bids and a summary of the bids received is attached (Attachment A). G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. of San Carlos submitted the lowest bid of $555,480, which is 7% below the Engineer’s Estimate of $597,016. Bid amounts were competitive and were quite favorable considering current petroleum prices. Staff has carefully checked the bid along with the listed references and has determined that the bid is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids dated August 27th, 2007. The majority of this project is funded on a reimbursement basis through a Federal STP grant, with the City contributing a mandatory 11.47% local match. This local match is a condition for receiving Federal funds. The current funding program is broken down as follows: Reimbursable Amount (Federal Grant): $367,000 Local Match (City’s 11.47% Non-Reimbursable Contribution): $42,095 (PMP Funds) Funding Amount Required to Complete Paving: $146,385 (PMP Funds) Change Order Authority: $44,520 (PMP Funds) Total Amount: $600,000 Page 1 of 2 72 Page 2 of 2 The scope of work for this phase of construction includes furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor to install asphalt overlay and re-stripe the segment of public roadway along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road between Herriman Avenue and Blauer Drive. It is therefore recommended City Council declare G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project, and to award a construction contract to this firm in the amount of their bid. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to an amount of $44,520 to cover any unforeseen circumstances which may arise during the course of the project. FISCAL IMPACTS: Sufficient funding in the adopted budget covers the funding for this project. This project will be reimbursed through a State/Federal STP grant at the completion of the project in the amount of $367,000. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. will not be declared the lowest responsible bidder and a construction contract will not be awarded to that firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare another bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the bids and direct staff to re-bid the entire project. However, staff does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re-bidding the project due to the competitive nature of the current bids received. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: The contract will be executed and the contractor will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Work will begin as soon as possible, and be completed within 45 working days. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Bid Summary 73 CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Rehab. & Overlay Phase 2 Project Bid Opening Date: September 24th, 2007 Engineer's Estimate G. Bortolotto & Co.Independent Construction Co.C.F. Archibald Paving, Inc.O' Grady Paving Inc.Top Grade Construction, Inc ItemApprox.Unit Description Unit Project Unit Project Unit Project Unit Project Unit Project Unit No.Quantity Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price 1 4,000 TON 2 INCH ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY 80 320,000.00 76.65 306,600.00 78.50 314,000.00 78.50 314,000.00 79.00 316,000.00 83.00 2 15,690 LIN.FT.WEDGE CUT 2 31,380.00 1.71 26,829.90 1.50 23,535.00 1.30 20,397.00 1.75 27,457.50 1.45 3 1,080 TON REPAIR FAILED STREET SECTION (RFSS), 4 INCH LIFT 113 122,040.00 109.00 117,720.00 113.00 122,040.00 108.00 116,640.00 125.00 135,000.00 110.00 4 3,022 LIN.FT.ASPHALT CONCRETE DIKE (CALTRANS) TYPE A 5.6 16,923.20 5.09 15,381.98 4.25 12,843.50 8.00 24,176.00 4.00 12,088.00 4.50 5 50 SQ.FTREMOVE CONCRETE (ADJACENT TO BUS STOP)30 1,500.00 20.00 1,000.00 13.16 658.00 20.00 1,000.00 30.00 1,500.00 28.00 6 12 TON 6 INCH ASPHALT CONCRETE PAD AT BUS STOP BENCH 95 1,140.00 119.00 1,428.00 280.00 3,360.00 120.00 1,440.00 125.00 1,500.00 180.00 7 1 LS CLEARING AND GRUBBING 6000 6,000.00 5092.00 5,092.00 4635.00 4,635.00 5000.00 5,000.00 6000.00 6,000.00 2000.00 8 20 EA ADJUST WATER VALVES 295 5,900.00 180.00 3,600.00 240.00 4,800.00 250.00 5,000.00 250.00 5,000.00 150.00 9 4 EA ADJUST MONUMENTS 305 1,220.00 180.00 720.00 240.00 960.00 250.00 1,000.00 250.00 1,000.00 150.00 10 17 EA ADJUST STORM SEWER MANHOLES 402 6,834.00 301.00 5,117.00 480.00 8,160.00 350.00 5,950.00 350.00 5,950.00 250.00 11 9 EA ADJUST SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES 402 3,618.00 301.00 2,709.00 480.00 4,320.00 350.00 3,150.00 350.00 3,150.00 250.00 12 2 EA ADJUST TRAFFIC LOOP G-5 BOX 320 640.00 400.00 800.00 655.00 1,310.00 250.00 500.00 300.00 600.00 280.00 13 1 LS TRAFFIC CONTROL (INCLUDE TWO (2) PORTABLE (CMS))35000 35,000.00 15999.00 15,999.00 15500.00 15,500.00 18000.00 18,000.00 20000.00 20,000.00 40000.00 14 14 EA TRAFFIC LOOPS (3 TYPE D AND 11 TYPE A)440 6,160.00 500.00 7,000.00 515.00 7,210.00 500.00 7,000.00 500.00 7,000.00 508.00 15 7,550 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 25 WITH TYPE H MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)1.1 8,305.00 1.20 9,060.00 1.25 9,437.50 1.30 9,815.00 1.30 9,815.00 1.20 16 8,414 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 9 WITH TYPE C MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)1.05 8,834.70 0.96 8,077.44 0.95 7,993.30 1.00 8,414.00 1.00 8,414.00 0.90 17 8,000 LIN.FT.THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 39, 39A (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)1.12 8,960.00 1.49 11,920.00 1.45 11,600.00 1.60 12,800.00 1.55 12,400.00 1.40 18 635 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 38 WITH TYPE G MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)1.95 1,238.25 1.80 1,143.00 1.90 1,206.50 2.00 1,270.00 2.00 1,270.00 1.80 19 130 LIN.FT.THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--12 INCH LIMIT LINE (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)3.9 507.00 6.42 834.60 6.20 806.00 7.00 910.00 7.00 910.00 6.00 20 485 LIN.FT.THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--12 INCH CROSSWALK (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)3.9 1,891.50 6.42 3,113.70 6.20 3,007.00 7.00 3,395.00 7.00 3,395.00 6.00 21 14 EA THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--TYPE 5 ARROW 24 FEET (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)285 3,990.00 342.00 4,788.00 330.00 4,620.00 340.00 4,760.00 350.00 4,900.00 325.00 22 7 EA THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--TYPE 3 (L) ARROW 24 FEET (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY) 252 1,764.00 342.00 2,394.00 330.00 2,310.00 340.00 2,380.00 350.00 2,450.00 325.00 23 6 EA THERMOPLASTIC 'ONLY' WORD MARKINGS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)165 990.00 342.00 2,052.00 330.00 1,980.00 340.00 2,040.00 350.00 2,100.00 325.00 24 3 EA THERMOPLASTIC 'STOP' WORD MARKINGS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)165 495.00 342.00 1,026.00 330.00 990.00 340.00 1,020.00 350.00 1,050.00 325.00 25 400 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 21 WITH TYPE H MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)3.00 1,200.00 2.14 856.00 2.10 840.00 2.50 1,000.00 2.20 880.00 2.00 26 102 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 22 WITH TYPE D MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)4.75 484.50 2.14 218.28 2.10 214.20 2.50 255.00 3.00 306.00 2.00 597,015.15$ 555,479.90$ 568,336.00$ 571,312.00$ 590,135.50$ 174 CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Rehab. & Overlay Phase 2 Project Bid Opening Date: September 24th, 2007 Pavex Construction Company El Camino Paving, Inc Granite Construction Company Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc RGW Construction, Inc ItemApprox.Unit Description Unit Project Unit Project Unit Project Unit Project Unit Project No.Quantity Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total 1 4,000 TON 2 INCH ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY 76.00 304,000.00 81.25 325,000.00 91.50 366,000.00 80.00 320,000.00 84.00 336,000.00 2 15,690 LIN.FT.WEDGE CUT 1.70 26,673.00 1.40 21,966.00 1.09 17,102.10 4.00 62,760.00 3.00 47,070.00 3 1,080 TON REPAIR FAILED STREET SECTION (RFSS), 4 INCH LIFT 112.00 120,960.00 112.00 120,960.00 125.00 135,000.00 135.00 145,800.00 140.00 151,200.00 4 3,022 LIN.FT.ASPHALT CONCRETE DIKE (CALTRANS) TYPE A 4.00 12,088.00 4.50 13,599.00 5.53 16,711.66 3.70 11,181.40 4.00 12,088.00 5 50 SQ.FTREMOVE CONCRETE (ADJACENT TO BUS STOP)79.00 3,950.00 20.00 1,000.00 13.20 660.00 20.00 1,000.00 40.00 2,000.00 6 12 TON 6 INCH ASPHALT CONCRETE PAD AT BUS STOP BENCH 570.00 6,840.00 125.00 1,500.00 115.00 1,380.00 220.00 2,640.00 250.00 3,000.00 7 1 LS CLEARING AND GRUBBING 8000.00 8,000.00 8000.00 8,000.00 8000.00 8,000.00 3000.00 3,000.00 3000.00 3,000.00 8 20 EA ADJUST WATER VALVES 235.00 4,700.00 300.00 6,000.00 340.00 6,800.00 450.00 9,000.00 250.00 5,000.00 9 4 EA ADJUST MONUMENTS 235.00 940.00 300.00 1,200.00 340.00 1,360.00 450.00 1,800.00 250.00 1,000.00 10 17 EA ADJUST STORM SEWER MANHOLES 465.00 7,905.00 405.00 6,885.00 445.00 7,565.00 860.00 14,620.00 500.00 8,500.00 11 9 EA ADJUST SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES 465.00 4,185.00 405.00 3,645.00 445.00 4,005.00 860.00 7,740.00 500.00 4,500.00 12 2 EA ADJUST TRAFFIC LOOP G-5 BOX 250.00 500.00 250.00 500.00 250.00 500.00 275.00 550.00 250.00 500.00 13 1 LS TRAFFIC CONTROL (INCLUDE TWO (2) PORTABLE (CMS))43300.00 43,300.00 18000.00 18,000.00 34000.00 34,000.00 28600.00 28,600.00 60000.00 60,000.00 14 14 EA TRAFFIC LOOPS (3 TYPE D AND 11 TYPE A)450.00 6,300.00 472.50 6,615.00 450.00 6,300.00 490.00 6,860.00 600.00 8,400.00 15 7,550 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 25 WITH TYPE H MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)1.22 9,211.00 2.10 15,855.00 1.20 9,060.00 1.30 9,815.00 1.20 9,060.00 16 8,414 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 9 WITH TYPE C MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)1.00 8,414.00 2.10 17,669.40 0.90 7,572.60 0.95 7,993.30 1.00 8,414.00 17 8,000 LIN.FT.THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 39, 39A (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)1.42 11,360.00 2.89 23,120.00 1.40 11,200.00 1.50 12,000.00 1.40 11,200.00 18 635 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 38 WITH TYPE G MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)1.80 1,143.00 3.00 1,905.00 1.80 1,143.00 1.90 1,206.50 1.80 1,143.00 19 130 LIN.FT.THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--12 INCH LIMIT LINE (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)6.00 780.00 5.00 650.00 6.00 780.00 6.50 845.00 6.00 780.00 20 485 LIN.FT.THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--12 INCH CROSSWALK (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)6.00 2,910.00 5.25 2,546.25 6.00 2,910.00 6.50 3,152.50 6.00 2,910.00 21 14 EA THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--TYPE 5 ARROW 24 FEET (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)324.00 4,536.00 210.00 2,940.00 320.00 4,480.00 340.00 4,760.00 320.00 4,480.00 22 7 EA THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--TYPE 3 (L) ARROW 24 FEET (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY) 324.00 2,268.00 200.00 1,400.00 320.00 2,240.00 340.00 2,380.00 320.00 2,240.00 23 6 EA THERMOPLASTIC 'ONLY' WORD MARKINGS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)324.00 1,944.00 200.00 1,200.00 320.00 1,920.00 340.00 2,040.00 320.00 1,920.00 24 3 EA THERMOPLASTIC 'STOP' WORD MARKINGS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)324.00 972.00 200.00 600.00 320.00 960.00 340.00 1,020.00 320.00 960.00 25 400 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 21 WITH TYPE H MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)2.00 800.00 4.00 1,600.00 2.00 800.00 2.10 840.00 2.00 800.00 26 102 LIN.FT. THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING--DETAIL 22 WITH TYPE D MARKERS (INCL. REMOVAL OF EXIST. STRIPING, IF NECESSARY)2.00 204.00 4.00 408.00 2.00 204.00 2.10 214.20 2.00 204.00 594,883.00$ 604,763.65$ 648,653.36$ 661,817.90$ 686,369.00$ 275 Top Grade Construction, Inc Project Total 332,000.00 22,750.50 118,800.00 13,599.00 1,400.00 2,160.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 600.00 4,250.00 2,250.00 560.00 40,000.00 7,112.00 9,060.00 7,572.60 11,200.00 1,143.00 780.00 2,910.00 4,550.00 2,275.00 1,950.00 975.00 800.00 204.00 593,901.10$ 376 477 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 12 DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Withdrawal of Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Move to withdraw the Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract. 2. Authorize the City Clerk to record attached Resolution Withdrawing the Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract. REPORT SUMMARY: At their October 18, 2006 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-078 approving annexation of a property located at 22490 Mt. Eden Road (APN 503-09-003) owned by South Thunder, LLC. The annexation was to become effective upon recordation of an offer of dedication of trail easement. The purpose of the easement dedication was to connect the City’s public trail system along Mt. Eden Road in the City to the County of Santa Clara’s public trail system leading to Stevens Creek County Park. The required offer to dedicate the trail easement and Resolution No. 07-033 accepting the dedication were recorded in the County of Santa Clara Recorder’s Office on July 16, 2007 at 3:54 PM at which time the annexation became effective. Coincidently, on the same day, July 16, 2007 at 10:38 AM, the County of Santa Clara recorded a Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract informing the homeowner about termination of the Williamson Act Contract on January 1, 2017 through the nonrenewal process. The Williamson Act (Land Conservation Act of 1956) provides for lowered property taxes for lands maintained in agricultural and certain open space uses. The landowner enters into a contract with the county or city to restrict land uses to those compatible with agriculture, wildlife habitat, scenic corridors, recreational use, or open space. In return, the local authorities calculate the property tax assessment based on the actual use of the land instead of its potential value assuming full commercial development. Each year the contract is automatically renewed for a new ten-year period, unless one of the parties notifies the other of a desire not to renew. In that case, the land use restrictions remain in effect until the remaining nine years of the contract have passed. Page 1 of 2 78 Page 2 of 2 The Conservation Element of the Saratoga General Plan states that the City shall encourage renewal of Williamson Act Contracts (Policy CO.2.2) and that Williamson Act contract cancellations shall be discouraged to the maximum extent feasible (Policy CO.2.3). Pursuant to the Government Code Section 51243 on and after the effective date of the annexation of the property the City of Saratoga succeeded to all rights, duties, and powers of the county under the Williamson Act Contract. The City may now withdraw the notice of nonrenewal of agricultural land preservation contract as stated in Government Code Section 51245. It is therefore recommended to withdraw the Notice of Nonrenewal to keep the referenced property under the existing Land Conservation Contract. FISCAL IMPACTS: None if the Notice of Nonrenewal is withdrawn. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Land Conservation Contract with the owner of 22490 Mt. Eden Road shall terminate January 1, 2017 unless the owner protests the nonrenewal. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: The Resolution will be recorded and copies will be sent to the Santa Clara County Assessor’s office, Santa Clara County Office of Planning and Development Services, and the California Department of Land Conservation. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Withdrawing the Notice of Nonrenewal 2. Notice of Nonrenewal including the cover sheet 79 Recording requested by, and to be returned to: City of Saratoga Department of Public Works 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WITHDRAWING THE NOTICE OF NONRENEWAL OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-078 on October 18, 2006 approving annexation to the City of Saratoga of a property located at 22490 Mt. Eden Road (APN 503-09-003) owned by South Thunder, LLC; and WHEREAS, the annexation was to become effective upon recordation of an offer of dedication of trail easement; and WHEREAS, the Offer to Dedicate the Trail Easement on two properties owned by South Thunder, LLC (APN 503-09-003 and APN 503-80-004) was recorded by the County of Santa Clara Recorder’s Office on July 16, 2007 at 3:51 PM; and WHEREAS, the City’s Resolution No. 07-033 accepting offer to dedicate trail easement was recorded by the County of Santa Clara Recorder’s Office on July 16, 2007 at 3:54 PM; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 51230 the City finds that this small preserve at 22490 Mt. Eden Rd. is necessary due to the unique characteristics of the horse farm enterprise with a main residence, stable, barn and related structures, irrigated pastures, paddocks and equestrian trails on the property and is consistent with the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara recorded a Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract on July 16, 2007 at 10:38 AM; and WHEREAS, the territory is restricted by Williamson Act Contract, and upon annexation of said territory becoming effective the City of Saratoga succeeded to the contract pursuant to the Government Code Section 51243; and 80 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Government Code Section 51245 the City may withdraw the notice of nonrenewal of agricultural land preservation contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the policies CO.2.2 and CO.2.3 of the City of Saratoga General Plan it is the established practice of the City of Saratoga to encourage Williamson Act Contract on land within the City limits and discourages the Williamson Act Contract cancellations to the maximum extent feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA hereby: 1. Pursuant to the Government Code Section 51245 the City hereby withdraws the Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract No. 93.005 recorded in the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office on July 16, 2007; and 2. Authorizes and directs City Clerk to record this Resolution. 3. Authorizes and directs the City Clerk to send copies of the recorded Resolution to the Santa Clara County Assessor’s office, Santa Clara County Office of Planning and Development Services, and the California Department of Land Conservation. Passed and adopted by on the 3rd day of October, 2007. by the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________ Aileen Kao, Mayor City of Saratoga Attest: _______________________ Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 13 DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone & DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Richard Taylor ____________________________ SUBJECT: Approval of the Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, trail name, and plan implementation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving the Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, trail name, and plan implementation. BACKGROUND: The Conceptual Plan for the proposed Saratoga de Anza Trail was refined in 2004 and 2005 based on input from community groups, residents of Saratoga, and City staff. The plan dated August 24, 2005 was approved by the City Council for environmental review on September 7, 2005.The Conceptual Plan is attached to this report as Attachment 1. An Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on the Plan were circulated for public comment from April 17, 2007 to May 18, 2007. The IS/MND and responses to comments on the IS/MND are attached to this report as Attachments 2 and 4. Funding for design and environmental review of the proposed trail comes from a grant from the Valley Transportation Authority and an anonymous donor. The donor agreement provides that the trail shall be named using “the first name of the Donor’s Spouse (for example, ‘Joe’s Trail at Congress Springs Park’ or ‘Joe’s Trail of the Saratoga PG&E Trail’).” This report recommends that if the Conceptual Plan is approved the City Council select a name in accordance with this requirement in addition to directing staff to proceed with other aspects of Plan implementation. DISCUSSION: Project Description The proposed trail would be located along an existing PG&E rightofway that is located parallel and adjacent to a Union Pacific Railroad line. The railroad line is located to the north of the PG&E rightof way. The trail would extend along a generally northwest/southeast alignment from SaratogaSunnyvale Road on the northwest to Saratoga Avenue on the southeast. The trail would also extend approximately 800 feet along the west side of Saratoga Avenue, south of the PG&E rightofway. The alignment would cross two creeks (Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek) and two roadways (Cox Avenue and Glen Brae Drive). 91 Implementation would result in the development of an approximately 1.3mile bike and pedestrian trail extending along an approximately 1.6mile PG&E easement that is approximately 75 feet wide. The trail includes two usable sections. The first section would extend from a parking lot adjacent to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road to parcel 38644042, which is approximately 0.57mile from the western terminus of the trail. There would be a 0.27mile gap between the first section and second section of the trail. The second section of the trail would extend from the edge of San Jose Water Company property (east of Cox Avenue) to Saratoga Avenue. This portion of the trail would be approximately 0.74 linear miles. The trail would be constructed on an easement acquired from PG&E and would involve no actual land acquisition by the City. The 12footwide trail would be surfaced with decomposed granite. (The trail would narrow to 5 feet around utility towers due to rightofway restrictions.) The project would also include focused trail corridor improvements, including a small (approximately five space) parking area and trail staging site with access from SaratogaSunnyvale Road, revegetation along the trail corridor (as needed), and two bridges – one over Rodeo Creek and the other over Saratoga Creek. The trail would connect to existing bike lanes along SaratogaSunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue. Please refer to the attached initial study for more detail. The attached resolution would approve the conceptual design plan. Environmental Review An Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were prepared and circulated for public review and comment from April 17, 2007 to May 18, 2007. The City provided notice of the public comment period through an advertisement in the local newspaper, through a mailing to residents in the vicinity of the project, and through the City’s website. In addition, the IS/MND was made available to the public in hard copy at the City offices and the Saratoga Library and electronically on the City’s website. All written comments received during the 30day review period and afterwards up to September 20, 2007 are addressed in the Responses to Comments Memo attached to this report as Attachment 4. Several of the comments received on the IS/MND concerned potential safety impacts related to implementation of the proposed project. The IS/MND found no significant safety impacts. In light of public concerns regarding this issue, however, staff retained a separate consultant to review the proposed project, the IS/MND, and the comments to evaluate project safety. The City retained Alta Planning + Design, a consulting firm with expertise in the field of railswithtrails, rail trails, greenways, and related facilities. Alta concluded that: “(t)he proposed De Anza Trail meets or exceeds all of the criteria for RailsWith Trails identified in the Federal Highway Administration ‘RailswithTrails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions’ report, therefore we expect this trail to function in a safe manner similar to the other 100 plus RailsWithTrails in the United States.” Alta also prepared a Trail Management Plan (TMP) based on the Conceptual Design Plan and project description in the IS/MND that clearly identifies how the trail is to be operated and maintained. Elements of the TMP include safety, security, operations, maintenance responsibilities and practices, and emergency response procedures. The TMP is attached to this report as Attachment 6. Other comments received were regarding potential impacts to hydrology and water quality, public utilities and services, and biological resources/vegetation management. The Initial Study found that, with implementation of proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City Council must review and 92 consider the MND in connection with its approval of the trail concept alignment. The City’s IS/MND consultant also prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that identifies potentially significant impacts and measures appropriate to lessen those impacts to lessthansignificant levels.The IS and MND and the MMRP are attached to this report and would be approved by the attached resolution. PG&E Agreement During the course of developing the trail plan and during the comment period, the City received a letter from PG&E stating their consent to the development of the trail within the rightofway. The letter also included a list of Terms and Conditions that the City will need to comply with in order to complete the easement transfer. The letter is attached to this report as Attachment 7. Included in these Terms and Conditions is a requirement that the City sign an indemnification agreement with PG&E to hold PG&E harmless against damage to the trail and to agree to use the rightofway at the City’s risk and expense. PG&E has indicated that its consent for use of the rightof way may require approval by the State of California Public Utility Commission. The PUC review process can take up to six months or longer and if required can only begin once the City has submitted the trail plan, adopted environmental documentation, and documentation of the agreement between the City and PG&E. The attached resolution would direct staff to pursue an agreement with PG&E and to take other actions necessary to proceed with the project. Trail Name The agreement with the donor providing some of the funds for planning and design provides that the trail shall be named using “the first name of the Donor’s Spouse (for example, ‘Joe’s Trail at Congress Springs Park’ or ‘Joe’s Trail of the Saratoga PG&E Trail’).” The donor agreement said that the name would be “Joe” “Paul,” or “Sam” and would be provided by the donor prior to issuance of the first construction contract for the trail. The donor has informed staff that the name to be used is “Joe”. Accordingly, staff recommends that the trail be named “Joe’s Trail at the Saratoga de Anza Trail.” The attached resolution would adopt this name. The trail may be given any other name consistent with the naming requirement in the donor agreement. COMMUNITY INPUT: The City conducted several neighborhood meetings about the project between 2004 and 2005. The trail concept alignment was shown to the attendees. The majority of the issues raised by the participants were discussed in the letters and emails attached to the IS/MND which is attached to this report. The public had additional opportunity for comment at the City Council hearing on September 7, 2005. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for design and environmental review of the proposed trail comes from a grant from the Valley Transportation Authority and an anonymous donor. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The trail would not be developed. 93 ALTERNATIVES: Deny the proposed project. FOLLOWUP ACTIONS: Proceed with agreement with PG&E and seeking approval of other agencies together with final project design and contracts for construction. ATTACHMENTS: 1. August 24, 2005 Conceptual Plan 2. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. September 25, 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4. September 25, 2007 Memorandum from LSA Regarding Responses to Comments 5. September 25, 2007 Letter from Alta Planning + Design re Trail Safety 6. Saratoga de Anza Trail (“Joe’s Trail”) Trail Management Plan 7. April 26, 2007 Letter from PG&E 8. Resolution approving the Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Plan, mitigated negative declaration, trail name, and plan implementation. 94 feet 3000 150 FIGURE 3a Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Site Plan SOURCE: DESIGN STUDIOS WEST, 2006. I:\smi0601 saratoga de anza trail\figures\Fig_3a.ai (04/10/07) TRAIL SEGMENT 95 feet 3000 150 FIGURE 3b Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Site Plan SOURCE: DESIGN STUDIOS WEST, 2006. I:\smi0601 saratoga de anza trail\figures\Fig_3b.ai (04/10/07) TRAIL SEGMENT 96 feet 3000 150 FIGURE 3c Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Site Plan SOURCE: DESIGN STUDIOS WEST, 2006. I:\smi0601 saratoga de anza trail\figures\Fig_3c.ai (04/10/07) TRAIL SEGMENT 97 feet 3000 150 FIGURE 3d Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Site Plan SOURCE: DESIGN STUDIOS WEST, 2006. I:\smi0601 saratoga de anza trail\figures\Fig_3d.ai (04/10/07) TRAIL SEGMENT 98 feet 3000 150 FIGURE 3e Saratoga de Anza Trail Conceptual Site Plan SOURCE: DESIGN STUDIOS WEST, 2006. I:\smi0601 saratoga de anza trail\figures\Fig_3e.ai (04/10/07) TRAIL SEGMENT 99 April 2007 SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 100 Submitted to the: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510.540.7331 SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION April 2007 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 101 P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. SUMMARY INFORMATION..........................................................................................2 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................7 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..................................................................................24 I. AESTHETICS....................................................................................................25 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.....................................................................28 III. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................29 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................34 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES...............................................................................41 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS...................................................................................45 VII. HAZARDS.........................................................................................................49 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.......................................................54 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING .........................................................................58 X. MINERAL RESOURCES..................................................................................61 XI. NOISE................................................................................................................61 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................65 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES..........................................................................................66 XIV. RECREATION...................................................................................................68 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.......................................................................68 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...........................................................74 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE............................................76 D. REPORT PREPARERS ..................................................................................................78 E. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................78 102 P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc ii FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity............................................................................................3 Figure 2: Project Site.........................................................................................................................7 Figure 3a Conceptual Site Plan..........................................................................................................9 Figure 3b: Conceptual Site Plan........................................................................................................11 Figure 3c: Conceptual Site Plan........................................................................................................13 Figure 3d: Conceptual Site Plan........................................................................................................15 Figure 3e: Conceptual Site Plan........................................................................................................17 TABLES Table 1: Policy Consistency Analysis ...........................................................................................60 Table 2: Noise Ordinance Standards .............................................................................................62 103 P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc (4/16/2007) 1 DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Name. Saratoga de Anza Trail Project Location. The proposed project would be located in the City of Saratoga along an existing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way that is located parallel and adjacent to a Union Pacific Railroad line. The railroad line is located to the north of the PG&E right-of-way. The Saratoga de Anza Trail would extend along a generally northwest/southeast alignment from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road on the northwest to Saratoga Avenue on the southeast. The alignment would cross two creeks (Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek) and two roadways (Cox Avenue and Glen Brae Drive). Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project. Figure 2 shows its location within Saratoga. Summary Description of Project. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the develop- ment of an approximately 1.3-mile bike and pedestrian trail extending along an approximately 1.6-mile PG&E easement that is approximately 75 feet wide. The trail includes two usable sections. The first section would extend from a parking lot adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to parcel 386-44-042, which is approximately 0.57-mile from the western terminus of the trail. There would be a 0.27-mile gap between the first section and second section of the trail. The second section of the trail would extend from the edge of San Jose Water Company property (east of Cox Avenue) to Saratoga Avenue. This portion of the trail would be approximately 0.74 linear miles. The trail would be constructed on an easement acquired from PG&E and would involve no actual land acquisition by the City. The 12-foot-wide trail would be surfaced with decomposed granite. (The trail would narrow to 5 feet around utility towers due to right-of-way restrictions.) The project would also include focused trail corridor improvements, including a small (approximately five space) parking area and trail staging site with access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, revegetation along the trail corridor (as needed), and two bridges – one over Rodeo Creek and the other over Saratoga Creek. The trail would connect to existing bike lanes along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue. Please refer to Section B, Project Description, for more detail. Findings. It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce to a less-than-significant level the project’s potentially significant effects on the environment are detailed on the following pages. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and fully made part of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Sara- toga has hereby agreed to incorporate as part of the project and implement each of the identified mitiga- tion measures, which would be adopted as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 104 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 2 A. SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Saratoga de Anza Trail 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: John Cherbone, Public Works Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: John Cherbone, Public Works Director (408) 868-1241 4. Project Location: The proposed project would be located in the City of Saratoga along an existing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way that is located parallel and adjacent to a Union Pacific Railroad line. The railroad line is located to the north of the PG&E right-of-way. The Saratoga de Anza Trail would extend along a generally northwest/southeast alignment from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road on the northwest to Saratoga Avenue on the southeast. The trail would also extend approximately 800 feet along the west side of Saratoga Avenue, south of the PG&E right-of-way. The alignment would cross two creeks (Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek) and two roadways (Cox Avenue and Glen Brae Drive). Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project. Figure 2 shows its location within Saratoga. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential 7. Zoning: R-1-12,500 105 HHH MILES FIGURE 1 SOURCE: ©2002 DeLORME. STREETATLAS USA®2003. I:\SMI0601 saratoga de anza trail\figures\Fig_1.ai (1/5/07) 100 N Saratoga de Anza Trail Project Location and Vicinity Project Location 106 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 4 8. Description of Project: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of an approximately 1.3-mile bike and pedestrian trail extending along an approximately 1.6-mile PG&E easement that is approxi- mately 75 feet wide. The trail includes two usable sections. The first section would extend from a parking lot adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to parcel 386-44-042, which is approximately 0.57-mile from the western terminus of the trail. There would be a 0.27-mile gap between the first section and second section of the trail. The second section of the trail would extend from the edge of San Jose Water Company property (east of Cox Avenue) to Saratoga Avenue. This portion of the trail would be approximately 0.74 linear miles. The trail would be constructed on an easement acquired from PG&E and would involve no actual land acquisition by the City. The 12-foot-wide trail would be surfaced with decomposed granite. (The trail would narrow to 5 feet around utility towers due to right-of-way restrictions.) The project would also include focused trail corridor improvements, including a small (approximately five space) parking area and trail staging site with access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, revegetation along the trail corridor (as needed), and two bridges – one over Rodeo Creek and the other over Saratoga Creek. The trail would connect to existing bike lanes along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue. Please refer to Section B, Project Description, for more detail. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed trail would be located along an existing utility easement that is adjacent to a railroad line. The trail corridor consists of a disturbed area with transmission towers, utility lines, large patches of bare soil, debris, gravel, informal pathways, and pockets of vegetation, including both weedy/exotic and native plant species. Two creeks (Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek) run through the corridor. The corridor, which is informally used by walkers, joggers, and bicyclists, extends through an urbanized portion of Saratoga that is mainly residential. The residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to much of the corri- dor generally consist of single-family housing. Non-residential uses around the trail (traveling along the corridor from the northwest to southeast) include: commercial uses to the north of the corridor adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Cox Reservoir (operated by the San Jose Water Company) south of the trail near Cumberland Drive; West Valley Fire Station north of the corridor to the east of Cox Drive; and Con- gress Springs Park north of the corridor to the east of Glen Brae Drive. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or partici- pation agreement): • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) • Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) • Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) • California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 107 JOSE WEST , CALIFORNIA PROJECT SITE FEET 20000 N SOURCE: I:\SMI0601 saratoga de anza trail\figures\Fig_2.ai (3/29/07) USGS 7.5’ QUADS-CUPERTINO AND SAN JOSE WEST, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2 Project Site Saratoga de Anza Trail 108 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 7 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following discussion includes a history of the Saratoga de Anza Trail (project), a description of the project site and surrounding land uses, and a description of the proposed project. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project. Figure 2 shows the location of the project in the context of the City of Saratoga. Figures 3a through 3e show the project site plans. The trail would be dedicated to a long-time user of the existing trail corridor, and will be named by the City Council via reference to the person being honored by the donor, such as “Joe’s Trail.” 1. Overview and Background The Trail was originally envisioned as part of a larger (approximately 8.7-mile) regional trail extending along the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the cities of Cupertino, Saratoga, and Campbell, and the Town of Los Gatos. The Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan, which was adopted in November 1995, designated the railroad corridor trail as a Regional Connector Trail between the Los Gatos Creek Trail and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. The trail was also intended to provide linkages to other trails in the area, including Stevens Creek Trail and San Antonio County Park Trail to the north of the corridor and Los Gatos Creek and Vasona Lake County Park Trails to the south of the corridor. In 1996, the City of Saratoga’s Bicycle Advisory Committee held preliminary discussions on utilizing the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and adjacent PG&E right-of-way for a multi-use trail, as envisioned in the Countywide Trails Master Plan. In March 2000, the Saratoga City Council passed Resolution 00- 016, which supports the creation of the Union Pacific Railroad Trail Task Force, which oversaw the preparation of the Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study. On October 15, 2001, a final Feasibility Study was published. The Feasibility Study outlined existing conditions along the corridor, summarized user needs, recommended various alternate alignments, and provided suggestions on design, trail implementation, maintenance, management, and funding. The Feasibility Study noted that the alignment of the currently-proposed Saratoga de Anza trail has few development constraints: “With the exception of a few minor encroachments in the PG&E right-of-way immediately to the north and south of Cox Avenue, the absence of constraints in this area allows for location of the trail on the west side of the tracks, setback a minimum of 25 feet from track centerline. In much of this segment, the Union Pacific right-of-way can be avoided completely by routing the trail in the PG&E right-of-way. Available room within the corridor is sufficient for a significant planting buffer to be placed within the trail and the tracks. Utilizing the extra width in the PG&E right-of-way, the trail layout should avoid removal of significant vegetation.” After withdrawal of the cities of Cupertino and Campbell and the Town of Los Gatos from the trail development process, and dissolution of the trail task force, the City of Saratoga became the lead agency for development of a trail through portions of a 1.6-mile segment of corridor (in Saratoga) that is the subject of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. On December 3, 2003, the Saratoga City Council directed City staff to develop a cooperative agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and an anonymous donor who offered to pay the required 20 percent local match funding for development of the trail in Saratoga. On February 4, 2004, the Saratoga City Council ap- proved the agreement with VTA and the anonymous donor. 109 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 8 The Conceptual Plan for the proposed project was refined in 2004 and 2005 based on input from commu- nity groups, residents of Saratoga, and City staff, and was approved by City Council for environmental review. The analysis in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on conceptual align- ment plans dated August 24, 2005. 2. Existing Conditions The entirety of the trail would be located in Saratoga, a city with a population of approximately 30,000 located in Santa Clara County. Saratoga, which comprises approximately 12 square miles, is located at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains and is surrounded by Cupertino and San Jose on the north; Campbell, Los Gatos, and Monte Sereno on the east; and unincorporated lands of Santa Clara County on the south and west. The following discussion includes a description of the corridor itself and land uses in the vicinity of the corridor. Characteristics of the Project Site. The project site is within an approximately 1.6-mile long corridor comprising an existing PG&E utility easement. The eastern terminus of the project site includes approxi- mately 800 linear feet of land along the west side of Saratoga Avenue, south of the PG&E right-of-way. The utility corridor, which is approximately 75 feet wide, is parallel and adjacent to a Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This railroad right-of-way is located immediately to the north of the project site. The project site consists of a disturbed area with regularly-spaced transmission towers; utility lines; large patches of bare soil; debris and gravel; and pockets of vegetation, including both invasive, weedy plant species and clumps of native vegetation, such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kellogii), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Herbicides have been applied in the past to reduce vegetation growth. Fencing generally separates the trail corridor from residential uses to the south. There is no fencing between the project site and the railroad right-of-way. Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek cross the narrow project site. Rodeo Creek is culverted north of an existing Union Pacific Railroad bridge; it has an open channel south of the bridge (through the project site). Through the trail corridor, the creek channel is surrounded by sparse riparian vegetation and con- tains numerous inflow pipes. The channel of Saratoga Creek is open both north and south of an existing railroad bridge. Its banks within the project site are bordered by substantial riparian vegetation. The project site is currently used informally by walkers, joggers, and cyclists. Use occurs along several informal trails that meander through the site. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted a trail user survey on July 22, 2006.1 On July 22, 51 users were observed within the trail corridor between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Approximately 87 percent of users were walking or jogging. Most users (approximately 80 percent) were estimated to be over the age of 30. The City maintains a parking lot comprising over 130 parking spaces that is located to the east of Cox Avenue at Congress Springs Park, within the right-of-way. Access to the corridor is via Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue (the streets at the termini of the project site) and Cox Avenue and Glen Brae Drive (the two streets that cross the interior of the corridor). There are also pedestrian en- trances to the trail corridor from the south of the corridor (off of Fredericksburg Drive) and north of the corridor (off of Guava Court). 1 LSA Associates, Inc., 2006. Draft Memorandum. User Survey on PG&E Right-of-Way in Saratoga. July 31. 110 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 9 Figure 3a Conceptual Site Plan (color; front) 8x11 111 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 10 Back of Figure 3a (Color) 8x11 8x11 112 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 11 Figure 3b: Conceptual Site Plan (color; front) 8 x 11 113 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 12 Back of Figure 3b (Color) 8x11 114 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 13 Figure 3c: Conceptual Site Plan (color; front) 115 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 14 Back of Figure 3c (Color) 8x11 116 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 15 Figure 3d: Conceptual Site Plan (color; front) 8 x 11 117 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 16 Back of Figure 3d (Color) 8x11 118 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 17 Figure 3e: Conceptual Site Plan (color; front) 8x11 119 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 18 Back of Figure 3e color) 120 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 19 Utility lines and infrastructure within the trail corridor are listed below: • Electrical: The PG&E right-of-way contains the Metcalf-Monta Vista Transmission Corridor, which runs from San Jose to Cupertino. The corridor contains four 230 kilovolt (kV) lines supported on transmission poles that range in height from approximately 100 feet to approximately 135 feet. • Natural Gas: High pressure gas mains, all of which are buried, extend across the project site at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue. • Water: The water lines within the project site, all of which are buried, include: an 18-inch wrapped steel cement-lined pipe along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, which continues parallel to and within the trail corridor; a 31.25-inch fiberglass wrapped cement-lined pipe, a 48-inch wrapped steel pipe, and an 18-inch wrapped steel pipe along Cox Avenue; a 6.625-inch coated cement-lined pipe along Glen Brae Drive; and 21.4-inch, 16-inch, and 10-inch ductile iron cement-lined pipes, and 25.25-inch wrapped steel cement-lined pipe along Saratoga Avenue. The trail corridor is interrupted in two locations within an approximately 0.27-mile gap in the trail corridor: 1) northeast of Glen Arbor Court, two privately-owned parcels comprising approximately 0.65- acre extend into the PG&E right-of-way and 2) near Cox Avenue, property owned by the San Jose Water Company extends into the right-of-way. These properties, along with the remainder of the land compris- ing the 0.27-mile gap in the 1.6-mile corridor, are not part of the project site. Therefore, the proposed trail would consist of two discrete segments within the 1.6-mile corridor. The first segment (approximately 0.57-miles) would extend from a parking lot adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and end at parcel 386- 44-042, northeast of Glen Arbor Court. The second segment (approximately 0.74 miles) would extend from the edge of the San Jose Water Company property (east of Cox Avenue) to Saratoga Avenue. Land Uses Outside the Project Site. The project site is parallel and adjacent to a Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The right-of-way, which is approximately 90 feet wide, is located immediately to the north of the project site. This portion of the Union Pacific Railroad is part of the Vasona Branch, which extends from the Union Pacific mainline at Newhall Yard in San Jose to the Hanson Permanente Cement facility in northwest Cupertino; it extends through the cities of Cupertino, Saratoga and Campbell, and the Town of Los Gatos. Hanson Permanente Cement is the only remaining customer served by the railroad. Perma- nente local trains run approximately three round trips per week, typically on a Monday-Wednesday-Fri- day schedule, delivering coal to the cement plant and bringing cement back toward San Jose.2 Railroad operations are expected to cease in 10 to 20 years (although this schedule could be altered by Union Pacific).3 The trail corridor extends through an urbanized portion of Saratoga that comprises mainly residential uses. The residential neighborhoods adjacent to the trail corridor generally consist of single-family hous- ing. Non-residential uses around the trail (traveling along the corridor from the northwest to southeast) include: commercial uses to the north of the corridor adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Cox Reser- voir (operated by the San Jose Water Company) south of the trail near Cumberland Drive; West Valley Fire Station north of the corridor to the east of Cox Drive; and Congress Springs Park north of the corri- dor to the east of Glen Brae Drive. 2 Alta Transportation Consulting, 2001. Union Pacific Rail Feasibility Study. October 15. 3 Union Pacific Railroad, 2007. D. Rhodes, Manager of Terminal Operations. January. 121 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 20 3. Project Goals and Objectives The key goal of the project is to formalize an existing trail corridor to benefit residents in Saratoga. Specific objectives of the project include the following: • Expand open space in Saratoga. • Mitigate potential impacts of the trail on adjacent residential properties and neighborhoods. • Improve regional trail connectivity to Bay Area open space and trail networks. • Create a safe, multi-use community asset. • Honor the historic legacy of Juan Batista de Anza and the early exploration of California. • Reduce automobile use to benefit regional air quality. 4. Proposed Project The following section includes a description of the proposed project. Trail. As described above, the proposed bike and pedestrian trail would generally extend from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Saratoga Avenue, and then approximately 800 feet along the west side of Saratoga Avenue. The approximately 12-foot-wide trail would be surfaced with decomposed granite and would be designed for pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists. (The trail would narrow to 5 feet around utility towers due to right-of-way restrictions.) The trail, which would generally be developed immediately south of the boundary between the PG&E corridor and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, includes two usable sections. The first section would extend from a parking lot adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to parcel 386-44-042, which is approximately 0.57-mile from the western terminus of the trail. There would be a 0.27-mile gap between the first section and second section of the trail. The second section of the trail would extend from the edge of San Jose Water Company property (east of Cox Avenue) to Saratoga Avenue. This portion of the trail would be approximately 0.74 linear miles. Within the 1.6-mile corridor there would be approximately 1.3 miles of linear trail. The trail would be constructed on an easement acquired from PG&E and would involve no actual land acquisition by the City. Bridges. The trail would include two bridges – one over Rodeo Creek, and a second over Saratoga Creek. The bridge over Rodeo Creek would be an approximately 40-foot-long prefabricated Pratt Truss Bridge. Bridge width could range from 8 feet to 12 feet, in accordance with Valley Transportation Authority stan- dards. The bridge would be painted steel, self-weathering steel, or galvanized steel and would include treated wood decking, and horizontal or vertical guardrails. A wood hand rail would be installed on each side of the bridge. The bridge would be parallel to the existing railroad bridge across Rodeo Creek. The bridge over Saratoga Creek would feature the same design as the bridge proposed to cross Rodeo Creek. The Saratoga Creek bridge would be approximately 100 feet long. Two alternate alignments are proposed for the bridge over Saratoga Creek. One alignment would be parallel to the existing railroad bridge over Saratoga Creek; the other would extend across the creek on a slight northwest/southeast angle. Bridge foundations would be constructed at both bridge locations on each side of the creek, and are anticipated to consist of reinforced concrete foundations with drilled piers. All bridge foundations would be constructed at least 6 feet from the top of the creek banks; no construction would occur within creek channels. 122 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 21 Both bridges, and the proposed trail, would be designed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation, Saratoga Bridges, Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek, Saratoga, California, prepared by Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc. and published in November 2006.4 These recommendations include the following specifications/requirements: • Bridge piers shall be located at least 6 feet from the top of the creek bank. • Bridge abutments shall be supported by drilled, cast-in-place reinforced concrete piers. • Site grading shall be performed such that: all loose material is removed prior to construction; fill is compacted; cut and fill slopes do not exceed a 2:1 incline; fill materials placed on slopes steeper than 6:1 shall be continuously keyed and benched; pipelines are buried and placed on adequate substrate; and trail subgrade surfaces are checked for yielding areas, and any yielding areas are excavated and replaced with compacted fill. • Bridge abutments, wing walls, and site retaining walls shall be supported on adequate drilled piers; backdrains shall be constructed behind all retaining walls. • Retaining walls supporting cut slopes shall be equipped with concrete-lined ditches that discharge into area drains. • Grading shall be designed so that runoff is directed away from bridge structures. • Bridge design shall be able to withstand peak ground accelerations of 0.66g and 0.65g. • All graded slopes higher than 8 feet with grades over 20 percent shall be covered with a securely- staked erosion control blanket. • An approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be implemented. • Final design plans shall be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical firm to ensure that the recommenda- tions in the Geotechnical Investigation have been adequately implemented. • All excavations shall be inspected by a qualified geotechnical firm. Access. A five space parking lot and staging area adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would be devel- oped as part of the project on the site of an informal parking area. This staging area is expected to include basic facilities such as trail signs and maps. The approximately 130-space parking area within the trail corridor south of Congress Springs Park currently serves users of the park, and could also be used to accommodate trail users. The parking lots/staging areas at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Congress Springs Park would serve as the primary access to the trail for users arriving by car and bike. The existing 12-foot-wide pedestrian trail access from Fredericksburg Drive/Guava Court would remain as part of the proposed project. Trail access from locations without parking lots is expected to be minimal; motor vehicles would utilize on-street parking. There is currently low demand for on-street parking in the vicinity of the project site because most houses in the area contain driveways and garages. Implementation of the project would marginally increase demand for on-street parking in certain locations around the project site. This increase in demand is expected to be less-than-significant, consistent with the anticipated increase in trail users after development of the trail. However, due to public concern about on-street parking supply, the 4 Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., 2006. Geotechnical Investigation, Saratoga Bridges, Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek, Saratoga, California. November. 123 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 22 City will evaluate parking conditions within the project site 1 year after project construction, and will consider developing and implementing a parking management program, if warranted. The proposed trail would connect to Class II (on-street) bike lanes on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue. Bicycle access is also expected to occur along Glen Brae Drive, which is a secondary street and is subject to generally low traffic volumes. Plant Maintenance. Existing vegetation, especially native trees and shrubs, would be preserved where possible. Based on the current trail alignment, and the results of a Preliminary Arborist Report, the proposed project could adversely affect 28 trees that are protected by Article 15-50 of the City’s Munici- pal Code (Tree Regulations). These protected trees include: three Monterey pines (Pinus radiata); one white alder (Alunus rhombifolia); one Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta); one cluster of small black oak trees (Quercus kellogii); and 22 coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Trees could be affected via pruning, impacts to root systems, or removal. Of these 28 trees, eight appear to be in direct conflict with the proposed trail and bridge alignment, suggesting that they would need to be removed unless the trail and bridge alignment is modified.5 These eight trees include one Mexican fan palm and one white alder growing adjacent to Saratoga Creek, one coast live oak in a dense section of vegetation on the west side of Glen Brae Drive, and a clump of five young oak trees on the portion of the trail that meets Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Screening vegetation would be provided by the City to owners of properties that front the trail corridor; such vegetation would be provided on a first-come-first serve basis subject to available funding, upon request by interested property owners, and would be maintained by the private property owners. No other vegetation would be installed within or adjacent to the project site as part of the project. Usage, Maintenance, and Patrol. The number of trail users is not expected to increase substantially as a result of project implementation. The project would formalize an existing, informally-used trail; the proposed facility is not anticipated to draw large numbers of new users because it is relatively short (a total of 1.3 miles), does not provide access to significant recreational areas (e.g., the shoreline of San Francisco Bay), and does not contain viewsheds that typically draw large crowds (e.g., unobstructed mountain or city skyline views). Similar to other recreational facilities in Saratoga (including bike/pedestrian trails), the proposed trail would receive routine, periodic patrol checks by the Santa Clara County Sheriff and the Code Enforce- ment Officer. The Office of the Sheriff has indicated that it expects no increased crime as a result of trail development; the Office of the Sherriff also indicated that this finding was consistent with the experience of local police departments in regard to other trail projects in Santa Clara County.6 The proposed trail would be maintained by the Saratoga Public Works Department; maintenance would include routine garbage pick-ups. Construction. Construction of the proposed project is scheduled to extend over a period of 10 to 30 weeks, based an expected trail construction of 50 to 150 linear feet per day (after initial site preparation).7 Therefore, construction period diesel emissions would be released adjacent to a specific house for only 5 City of Saratoga, 2006. DeAnza Trail Preliminary Arborist Report. Prepared by Kate Bear, Community Development Department. August 16. 6 Hirokawa, John, 2005. Letter to John Cherbone, Saratoga Public Works Director, from Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Of- fice. May 11. 7 Harvacik, Iveta, 2006. Associate Engineer, City of Saratoga. August 18. 124 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 23 one to three days (or approximately eight to 24 hours of actual equipment operation). Local traffic and parking demand on streets in the vicinity of the project site would increase incrementally due to construc- tion personnel driving to the site. Minimal grading and excavation would occur within the right-of-way as part of development of the proposed trail. Ground disturbance to construct the trail would generally extend to a maximum of 9 inches below ground surface. Several construction vehicles, including a bobcat, backhoe-loader, dump truck, and possibly one to two utility trucks, would be on the site at the same time during construction of the trail. Construction of the parking lot would require operation of a bulldozer, dump trucks, asphalt truck, roller, and utility trucks. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented on the project site during the construction period. The SWPPP would ensure that soil erosion is minimized, hazardous construction materials are adequately contained, and sediment and synthetic contaminants do not enter creek channels. Bridge foundations would be constructed within the project site; however, the bridges themselves would be manufactured off-site and transported to the site. Bridge installation is expected to take several weeks (per bridge) and would require operation of a mobile drill rig, bobcat, backhoe, dump truck, concrete mixer, and one to two utility trucks. A crane would be used to install the two bridges on prepared abut- ments. The project would incorporate all mitigation measures proposed in this Initial Study. 5. Project Approvals/Entitlements The City would undertake approvals of the following items as part of the proposed project: • Trail Concept Alignment • Easement and Indemnification Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) The City may need to obtain permits and/or approval from the following agencies: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Potential approvals by other agencies and organizations are listed below: Pacific Gas and Electric • Grant of Easement California Public Utilities Commission • Approval of PG&E’s grant of the easement for the proposed trail pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 851 and Encroachment Permit 125 126 127 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 26 which would be maintained by the property owner, would help obstruct views from the project site into adjoining properties. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? The project site does not include any portions of a State scenic highway and is not located in the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway.8 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the removal of rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Native vegetation would be preserved where feasible during construction of the proposed trail. However, the City anticipates that select trees and shrubs could be removed within the PG&E corridor where they would interfere with the proposed trail alignment. In addition, two trees and additional riparian vegetation may be removed to construct the bridge over Saratoga Creek. Although the City is not required to adhere to the tree protection provisions in the Saratoga Municipal Code, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration provides an analysis of the consistency of the project with the tree protection provisions to inform discussion of the project’s potential environmental impacts. An arborist report prepared for the project site indicates that 28 trees protected (in private development projects) by Chapter 15-050 of the City’s Municipal Code could be adversely affected by the project through pruning, compaction of root material, or removal. Of these trees, eight are in direct conflict with the current bridge and trail alignment and may need to be removed. In addition, trees could be harmed by pesticide and herbicide use during operation of the trail. Removal of 28 trees within the project site would result in an incremental change to the visual character of the project site. However, these trees are not considered significant scenic resources; they are not emblematic of Saratoga’s history and are typical of other individuals in the area. Therefore, the project would not damage significant scenic resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce visual impacts associated with the removal of protected trees to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AES-1: The City shall implement the following measures: 1. Tree protective fencing shall be installed and established prior to any grading or the arri- val of construction equipment or materials on the project site. The fencing shall comprise 6-foot high chain-link fencing mounted on 8-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing shall remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction proc- ess until final inspection. 2. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the contractor following installation of pro- tective fencing and prior to start of work to review tree protection measures. 3. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities shall be conducted outside the des- ignated fenced area, including the time after fencing is removed. Construction activities 8 California Department of Transportation, 2006. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/- LandArch/scenic/schwy1.html. July. 128 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 27 include, but are not limited to, demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stock- piling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 4. Any approved grading or trenching beneath tree canopies shall be performed manually using shovels. 5. Any pruning of trees shall be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 6. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil, and gasoline) shall be prohib- ited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on the site where drainage occurs beneath tree canopies. In addition, fuel shall not be stored and refueling or maintenance of equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of a tree trunk. 7. Herbicides and pesticides shall not be applied beneath tree canopies as part of the pro- posed project. Where used on the site, herbicides shall be labeled for safe use near trees. 8. Tree removal shall be avoided if feasible. If trees are removed (in or adjacent to the pro- ject site), they shall be replaced. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The project site is characterized by an existing utility easement that contains regularly-spaced trans- mission poles and lines, large patches of bare soil, pockets of vegetation, and an informal trail. Portions of the trail are currently subject to accumulated litter. The adjacent Union Pacific Railroad tracks are also an important component of the site’s visual character. The site appears as a disturbed environment, one that contains select locations of visual interest (e.g., creek crossings and views of the Santa Cruz Mountains). The proposed project would result in generally non-intrusive development, including a 12-foot-wide decomposed granite-covered multi-use trail on the site of an existing trail, associated signage and parking area, and revegetation in areas of disturbed soil. The visual effects of the proposed project would be minor, and would consist of changes to the site that make the area appear as a place intended for the use of bicyclists, joggers, and pedestrians. Currently, the site is officially off-limits to the public, although it is regularly used by Saratoga residents. The minor changes to the site that would occur as a result of project implementation are anticipated to lend a greater sense of comfort to those who use the existing informal trail, and would be expected to comprise an overall benefit to visual quality and setting. Revegetation of disturbed areas could restore some of the natural appeal of the area and reduce the perception of the corridor as a marginal area where trash disposal is acceptable. Increased surveillance of the site could also reduce the disposal of litter in the area, resulting in additional benefits to the visual quality of the corridor. Litter would also be reduced through regular maintenance visits by the Saratoga Public Works Department. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to enhance the visual character of the existing PG&E corridor. 129 130 131 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 30 quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons. Ozone levels, as measured by peak concentrations and the number of days over the State one-hour stan- dard, have declined substantially as a result of aggressive programs by the BAAQMD and other regional, State and federal agencies. The reduction of peak concentrations represents progress in improving public health; however the Bay Area still exceeds the State standard for one-hour ozone levels. Levels of par- ticulate matter-large (PM10) in the Bay Area have exceeded State standards at least two times per year over the last three years. The area is considered a nonattainment area for this pollutant relative to the State standards. The Bay Area is an unclassified area for the federal PM10 standard. An “unclassified” designa- tion signifies that data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. No exceedances of the State or federal carbon monoxide (CO) standards have been recorded at any of the region’s moni- toring stations since 1991. The Bay Area is currently considered a maintenance area for State and federal CO standards. New national and State standards for fine particulate matter (diameter 2.5 microns or less, PM2.5) have recently been adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. Fine particulate matter, because of the small size of individual particles, can be especially harmful to human health. Fine particulate matter is emitted by common combustion sources such as cars, trucks, buses and power plants, in addition to ground disturbing activities. The Bay Area is considered an attainment area for PM2.5 at the national level and a nonattainment area for PM2.5 at the State level. Clean Air Plan. The most recent BAAQMD plan for attaining California Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, was adopted by BAAQMD on January 4, 2006. The 2005 Ozone Strategy is the fourth triennial update of the BAAQMD’s original 1991 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The 2005 Ozone Strategy demonstrates how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State one-hour air quality standard for ozone and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone pre- cursors to neighboring air basins. The Ozone Strategy also includes stationary source control measures, mobile source control measures and transportation control measures. Although it is only required to address ozone pollution and associated control measures, the Ozone Strategy also discusses particulate matter pollution and reduction measures. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As noted above, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which also addresses particulate matter, is the air quality plan that applies to the project site. The primary source of ozone is internal combustion engines and power plants. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to regional ozone emissions in the form of emissions from construction vehicles and emissions from motor vehicles driven to and from the project site by trail users. The project would contribute to particulate matter emissions (both PM10 and PM2.5) through construction vehicle emissions and the disturbance of soil within the project site during the construction period. Construction activities within the project site would include minimal grading and earthmoving (because the project site already has an appropriate grade for a multi-use trail), the revegetation of disturbed areas, and the laying of decomposed granite over the proposed trail alignment. These activities, which include ground disturbance and the operation of motorized construction vehicles, would incrementally increase ozone and particulate matter emissions in the region during the project construction period, which is 132 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 31 anticipated to extend from 10 to 30 weeks. The area of ground disturbance would consist of approxi- mately 2.15 acres. According to BAAQMD, temporary, construction period air quality impacts (for all pollutants) are considered less-than-significant if standard BAAQMD particulate matter control measures are imple- mented. The BAAQMD does not maintain significance thresholds for PM2.5; however, mitigation meas- ures for large particulate matter (PM10) would also be effective at reducing emissions of small particulate matter (PM2.5). Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which includes the required BAAQMD control measures outlined in the agency’s CEQA Guidelines, would reduce the project’s construction period air quality impacts (including construction period conflicts with the 2005 Ozone Strategy) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project site during the construction and pre-construction phases of the project: 1) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. 3) Apply water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 4) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 5) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent pub- lic streets. 6) Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously dis- turbed areas inactive for ten days or more). 7) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) 8) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 9) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 10) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11) Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 12) Minimize idling time (to 5 minutes or less). 13) Maintain properly-tuned equipment. Vehicle Emissions. Refer to Section XV, Transportation/Traffic, for a discussion of the project’s expected trip generation. As described in that section, the number of trail users is expected to increase modestly after implementation of the project. A proportionally small number of new users would access the trail via motor vehicles. Therefore, the project’s operational-period ozone contribution would be less-than- significant, and the project would not conflict with the 2005 Ozone Strategy. The improvement of bicycle access and facilities, which is one of the key objectives of the project, is a transportation control measure included in the 2005 Ozone Strategy, and could marginally improve air quality in the basin during the long-term. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 133 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 32 Implementation of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to marginally increased levels of particulate matter (including both PM10 and PM2.5) during the construction period, due to fuel combustion by construction equipment and ground disturbance. Exposure of sensitive receptors to particulate matter associated with project construction activities is expected to be relatively low due to: the presence of winds in the trail corridor (which often disperse air pollutants) and the limited duration of construction activities (a total of 10-30 weeks). Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant. After this identification process, the ARB completed a risk manage- ment process that determined potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel traffic (e.g., distribution centers and truck stops) were identified as having the highest risk to adjacent receptors. Other facilities associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, high volume transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from diesel fuel-generated particulate matter are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. As discussed in the introduction to this section, the San Francisco Bay air basin is considered a nonattain- ment area for particulate matter and for one-hour ozone levels, under State standards. As discussed in Section IIIa, construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in a short-term release of particulate matter into the atmosphere, and could contribute to existing future particulate matter violations. However, according to BAAQMD, temporary, construction period air quality impacts (for all pollutants) are considered less-than-significant if standard BAAQMD particulate matter control measures are implemented. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Vehicle Emissions. As discussed in Section IIIa, the project is expected to generate only a small increase in the number of motorized vehicle trips. The ozone precursors released by trail-related car trips would not comprise a significant contribution to the air basin’s violation of the one-hour ozone standard. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (includ- ing releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? As discussed in Section IIIb, the proposed project would not result in significant emissions of ozone during the short-term construction period or the long-term trail operation period. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the project does not make a sig- nificant short-term contribution to the air basin’s non-attainment status for particulate matter: Mitigation Measure AIR-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 134 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 33 Refer to Section VII for a discussion of hazards associated with less-than-significant levels of railroad- and agriculture-related contaminants on the project site. Sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project site include residential uses to the north and south of the PG&E corridor and two elementary schools: Blue Hills Elementary School (located approximately ¼-mile north of the project site at 12300 De Sanka Avenue) and Argonaut School (located approximately ½-mile south of the project site at 13200 Shadow Mountain Drive). No other sensitive receptors, including nursing homes, retirement communi- ties, or hospitals are located within ½-mile of the project site. Union Pacific Railroad trains run approximately three times per week on the tracks adjacent to the project site. These trains release various air emissions, including diesel engine exhaust. Therefore, trail users would be exposed to small amounts of diesel exhaust. However, because trains run infrequently adjacent to the project site (approximately three times per week), trail users would be only occasionally exposed to increased concentrations of diesel exhaust. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with train emissions, even under the very protective criteria of signifi- cance for toxic air emissions promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Residents and other sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site would also be temporarily exposed to diesel engine exhaust during the construction period due to the operation of construction equipment. It is anticipated that several construction vehicles, including a bobcat, backhoe-loader, concrete mixer, asphalt truck, and dump truck, and possibly one to two utility trucks would be located within the project site at any given time (some or all of which would be active). After initial site prepara- tion, construction would generally occur in a linear fashion down the trail corridor, with trail installation occurring at the rate of approximately 50 to 150 linear feet per day. Refer to the project description for more information about construction activities. Therefore, construction period diesel emissions would be released adjacent to a specific house for only one to three days (or approximately eight to 24 hours of actual equipment operation). Heavy machinery would also be operated within the site to construct the two proposed bridges and to prepare the site prior to construction, but these activities are expected to be relatively short in duration (each bridge would take several weeks to construct) and would not result in significant long-term emissions of diesel exhaust. Additional, diesel-specific mitigation is not required due to the short duration of construction in specific locations within the project site. The concentration of diesel emissions on the site and the duration of exposure to these emissions by sensitive receptors near the project site would not result in significant adverse health effects. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the removal or disturbance of large quantities of saturated or hydric soils with high proportions of organic matter that would cause objectionable odors when the soil dries. Other components of the proposed project, including the installation of landscaping and signage, would not create objectionable odors. 135 136 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 35 hawk, which nests and forages in urban neighborhoods, and Pacific pond turtle. California red-legged frog is not expected to occur in the project site. However, mitigation is provided to protect this species in the event that red-legged frog is found to occupy the project site at a later date. Plants The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) contains records for 15 special-status plant species in the vicinity of the project site (refer to Table A in the Biological Assessment for a list and description of these species and associated habitat). None of these species are expected to occur within the project site, due to its urban setting and consequent lack of native habitat (i.e., chaparral, woodlands, and alkaline soils). In addition, most of the existing records of these species are from private collections made prior to 1970, and there are no recent field observations of any of these species in the Saratoga area. Given this lack of confirmed records and the disturbed nature of the project site, no special-status plant species are expected to occur. Animals The CNDDB contains records for six special-status animal species in the vicinity of Saratoga (refer to Table A in the Biological Assessment). Three of these, California tiger salamander (Ambystoma cali- forniense), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), are considered unlikely to occur in the project site due to its residential setting and subsequent lack of suitable habitat. California tiger salamander and burrowing owl occur in areas with abundant open grassland and small mammal burrows, neither of which is present in the vicinity of the site. Although the non-native grassland at the southeastern end of the project site contains suitable foraging habitat for white-tailed kite, it is too small to be used regularly by this species, which rarely occurs in moderately dense suburban and urban residential areas. The remaining species have at least some potential to occur in the project vicinity and are discussed below. California red-legged frog is discussed in more detail since it is protected by the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which is listed as threatened under the ESA and is a California species of special concern, occurs in Saratoga Creek. Although the species is not listed in the CNDDB for the project site, it is expected to use the stretch of Saratoga Creek within the site. The potential for steelhead to occur in the project site, and potential impacts to the species associated with the project are discussed in Section IV.b (which addresses creeks and riparian habitat on the site). California Red-legged Frog. California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (CRLF) is listed as threatened under the federal ESA, and is also a California Species of Special Concern. The CRLF has been extirpated or nearly extirpated from 70 percent of its former range. Population declines of this spe- cies have been attributed to a variety of factors, with habitat loss and predation by non-native aquatic predators (e.g., bullfrogs, crayfish, other non-native fishes) typically implicated as primary threats. Habitat. CRLF occur in and along freshwater marshes, streams, ponds, and other semi-permanent water sources. Optimal habitat contains dense emergent or shoreline riparian vegetation closely asso- ciated with deep (i.e., greater than 2.3 feet), still, or slow-moving water. Cattails (Typha sp.), bul- rushes (Scirpus sp.), and arroyo willows provide the habitat structure that seems to be most suitable for CRLF. Although CRLF can occur in intermittent streams and ponds, it is unlikely to persist in streams in which all surface water disappears. Suitable breeding ponds and pools usually have a minimum depth of 20 inches, but CRLF does sometimes breed successfully in pools as shallow as 10 inches. Regardless of water depth, suitable breeding habitat must contain water during the entire de- velopment period for eggs and tadpoles. 137 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 36 Occurrences in the Project Site Vicinity. The closest known CRLF occurrence to the project site is a 1997 sighting in Saratoga Creek just east of the Toll Gate Road bridge, approximately 2.3 miles up- stream (i.e., southwest) of the project site. A single juvenile CRLF was found under a board in a seep next to the creek. Habitat at this location was described as “well-shaded by riparian vegetation,” with the “seep area dominated by horsetail and blackberry plants.” The only other occurrences within 5 miles of the site are in Permanente Creek and in an artificially landscaped pond in the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, both approximately 4 miles northwest of the site. The site is not located within any CRLF critical habitat units as designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Occurrence on the Project Site. Potential CRLF habitat on the project site is limited to Saratoga Creek. Except for a few small pools formed by urban runoff, Rodeo Creek was dry at the time of a June 15 site visit conducted by LSA. In addition, the banks are mostly devoid of vegetation and the channel lacks substantial stands of emergent vegetation. The portion of Rodeo Creek in the vicinity of the proposed bridge has been degraded due to the construction of bank stabilization (i.e., concrete) and storm flow management (i.e., outfalls and pipes) structures. As a result, Rodeo Creek is of limited habitat value for CRLF. Given the low habitat quality and lack of occurrences in the associated drain- age, CRLF is not expected to occur in Rodeo Creek at the proposed bridge crossing. Saratoga Creek contains marginal aquatic dispersal habitat for CRLF. The channel in this location is approximately 15 feet wide with a substrate of mixed cobble and gravel. The creek contained an aver- age 6 inches of rapidly flowing water at the time of the June 15 site visit, and did not contain any ar- eas of slow-moving water or pools. Although there is substantially more riparian vegetation (e.g., wil- lows and alders) at this location than at Rodeo Creek, the channel itself does not contain any emer- gent vegetation and the creek margins are mostly bare. Similar habitat conditions were observed along the creek both upstream (Cox Avenue bridge) and downstream (Via Monte Drive bridge) of the project site. None of the on-site habitat conditions would be considered suitable for CRLF breeding. The observation of CRLF approximately 2.3 miles upstream of the proposed bridge suggests that in- dividuals could disperse downstream to the project site. However, given the lack of known breeding sites, increased urbanization, and reduced habitat quality downstream of the project site, it is highly unlikely that CRLF would disperse through the project site from the Toll Gate Road location. In addi- tion, there have been no CRLF sightings in Saratoga Creek within the last nine years, further reducing the likelihood that they could occur in the vicinity of the proposed bridge. Potential Project Impacts. As described above, CRLF are highly unlikely to be present at either of the two creek crossings, despite the presence of marginal aquatic dispersal habitat in Saratoga Creek. Moreover, construction of the proposed truss bridge over Saratoga Creek is expected to involve mini- mal, if any, work within the existing channel, and would not result in permanent alteration of the ex- isting aquatic habitat. Although the location and construction methods for the concrete foundations have not yet been specified, it is assumed that they would be constructed in the upper portion of the banks, well above the water line. Given that (1) CRLF is unlikely to occur on the project site and (2) bridge construction would not result in the permanent loss of aquatic habitat, the project is not ex- pected to have a significant impact on CRLF. However, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a would ensure that impacts to CRLF frog would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if individuals are found to occur on the project site. Pacific Pond Turtle. Pacific pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), formerly known as western pond turtle, is a California Species of Special Concern. Pond turtles occur in a wide variety of aquatic habitats, 138 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 37 including ponds, lakes, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches that typically have a rocky or muddy bottom and contain stands of aquatic vegetation. The presence or absence of pond turtles at a given aquatic site is largely dependent on the availability of suitable basking sites and adjacent upland habitat for egg-laying (e.g., sandy banks or grassy open fields) and over-wintering. Nests are typically dug in dry substrate with a high clay or silt fraction since the female moistens the site where she will excavate the nest prior to egg-laying. Hatchlings require shallow water habitat with relatively dense submergent or short emergent vegetation in which to forage. The only known Pacific pond turtle occurrence within 5 miles of the project site is at the Vasona Reser- voir, approximately 3.3 miles southeast of the Saratoga Creek crossing. One turtle was observed at this location in 1998 and three were observed in 2001. Saratoga Creek provides marginal aquatic habitat for Pacific pond turtles. Although the site lacks dense emergent vegetation, suitable basking sites are present along the channel (i.e., rocks and sandy banks). The surrounding upland habitat does not appear suitable for nesting, however, given the lack of native soils. The presence of a paved parking lot and highly com- pacted fill west of the creek further reduces the quality of available upland habitat. As such, Pacific pond turtles have moderate potential to occur in Saratoga Creek in the vicinity of the proposed bridge. Imple- mentation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2a, discussed below, would reduce potential impacts to Pacific pond turtle to a less-than-significant level. Cooper’s Hawk. Cooper’s hawk is a California Special of Special Concern, and the special-status desig- nation applies primarily to nest sites. In natural areas, this species nests primarily in dense oak or riparian woodlands, almost always by a stream, pond, or temporary pool. Cooper’s hawk has also adapted to the urban environment and is known to nest in several central California cities, including San Jose. High nest- site availability (i.e., tall ornamental trees) and an abundant prey base (e.g., rock pigeons, mourning doves, American robins) are the primary habitat components that attract this species to urban neighbor- hoods. Although no Cooper’s hawks were detected during the June 15 site visit, the numerous ornamental trees within and adjacent to the site and the riparian trees along both creeks provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Given that Cooper’s hawk forages widely throughout urban neighborhoods, the site may also function as foraging habitat for individuals that may be nesting elsewhere in Saratoga. As such, there is high potential for Cooper’s hawk to occur on the project site. Eight trees that are protected by the City’s Tree Regulations are located within the proposed trail and bridge alignment, and would likely be removed unless the alignment is modified. Some of these trees could provide nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk. If conducted during the breeding season (i.e., March through August), construction activities could directly affect nesting birds by removing trees that support active nests. Prolonged loud construction noise could also disturb nesting birds, resulting in nesting failure. All native birds and their nests are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, all vegetation removal activities shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (i.e., September through February) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work must be scheduled during the breeding season (March through August), a qualified orni- thologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the work area to determine if any birds are nest- ing in or in the vicinity of vegetation to be removed. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted 139 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 38 within 15 days prior to the start of work from March to May (since there is higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June–August. If active nests are found in the work area, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and shall be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitiv- ity to disturbance. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Riparian woodland occurs within the project site at the two creek crossings. Vegetation at the two creeks differs in both structure and species composition, largely due to differing stream flows and associated soil moisture. Except for a few small pools formed by urban runoff, Rodeo Creek was mostly dry at the time of the June 15 site visit; therefore, flow appears to be intermittent. The tree cover lacks alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix sp.), and other hydrophytic species typically associated with riparian woodland, and is instead limited to a few mature coast live oaks with no accompanying shrubs. Although the majority of the banks are devoid of vegetation, English ivy (Hedera helix), Smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum), and Himalayan blackberry occur in a few small patches. Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) was observed growing in the channel within a pool of standing water approximately 20 feet upstream (i.e., southwest) of the railroad crossing. This pool appears to have formed from urban wastewater runoff from a nearby drainage pipe, and drains via a concrete-walled culvert that directs flow under the railroad bridge. In contrast to the dry, sparsely vegetated conditions along Rodeo Creek, Saratoga Creek supports a dense, multi-layered woodland that more closely resembles typical riparian habitat. The creek contained an aver- age 6 inches of rapidly flowing water at the time of the June 15 site visit and is likely perennial. Alder (Alnus sp.) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) comprise the majority of the tree cover, which averages approximately 95 percent. Other riparian tree and shrub species present include shining willow (Salix lucida), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and California buckeye (Aesculus californica). Scattered individuals of walnut, Brazilian pepper tree, edible fig, and coast live oak also occur within the woodland. A lone fan palm (unidentified non-native species) is present on the western bank. Dense mats of California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and Himalayan blackberry cover a large portion of the ground, with small amounts of California manroot (Marah fabaceous), horsetail (Equisetum sp.), French broom (Genista monspessulana), and Smilo grass comprising the majority of the herbaceous cover. As noted above, steelhead are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and are a California Species of Special Concern. Although no steelhead was observed during a reconnaissance survey, Saratoga Creek is known to support a non-anadromous, resident population of this species. In April 1996, 18 steelhead were caught as part of sampling activities downstream from Via Monte Drive, approximately 0.3 mile south of the proposed bridge crossing over Saratoga Creek.11 As such, steelhead is expected to occur on the project site at Saratoga Creek. However, the project would not result in any direct impacts to 11 Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey, 2005. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. 140 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 39 the streambed or creek banks. Potential short-term impacts associated with bridge construction include increased sedimentation and inadvertent release of pollutants into the creek. However, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Preven- tion Plan (SWPPP), required as part of the project. The project would result in the removal of two trees growing near Saratoga Creek. However, the removal of these trees would not alter localized water temperature regimes, and would not be detrimental to steelhead. A total of 225 linear feet (0.06 acre) of potential waters of the United States (pursuant to United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction) were identified within the study area. This total includes 115 linear feet (0.02 acre) of intermittent stream (Rodeo Creek) and 110 linear feet (0.04 acre) of peren- nial stream (Saratoga Creek). The proposed trail would cross these jurisdictional waters. These creeks are also under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The proposed piers of the bridges over Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek would be constructed at least 6 feet from the top of the creek banks. No modifications would take place under the Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWM) of Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek. In addition, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared as part of the project, and would minimize soil and contaminant releases into Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek. Therefore, construction of the proposed bridges would not directly impact jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and RWQCB jurisdiction. A Section 404 permit would not be required from the Corps and no Section 401 water quality certification would be required from the RWQCB. Although Corps jurisdiction only extends to the OHWM, CDFG jurisdiction extends from the stream bed up to the top-of-bank under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Construction of the bridges would adversely affect areas under CDFG jurisdiction since removal and trimming of riparian vegetation would result in substantial changes to the banks of an existing stream. According to the Preliminary Arborist Report12 prepared for the project, one white alder and one Mexican fan palm growing next to Saratoga creek would be removed as part of the project. Construction activities within the project site could also result in the spread of non-native invasive species in sensitive areas (e.g., riparian zones). Implementation of the following three-part mitigation measure would reduce impacts to protected animal species, jurisdictional riparian vegetation, and sensitive areas to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: The City shall apply for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from the CDFG. The SAA shall include measures to protect fish and wildlife resources, including Pacific pond turtle and California red-legged frog, during construction. Measures included in the SAA to pro- tect Pacific pond turtle and California red-legged frog shall include the following: • Conduct pre-construction surveys of the proposed work area one to two weeks prior to the start of construction to ensure that no individuals are present. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist and shall consist of one daytime and one night survey. • Conduct a final pre-construction survey within 48 hours prior to the start of construction to confirm that no individuals are present. • Require that construction of the Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek bridges be completed be- tween April 1 and November 1. • Locate equipment maintenance, refueling, and staging areas at least 100 feet from creek banks. Conduct refueling behind a contaminant barrier that prevents spilled or leaked fuel 12 The Arborist Report will be finalized upon completion of construction plans. 141 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 40 from entering the creek. All equipment servicing shall be conducted within designated areas with appropriate setbacks from the top of the bank. All motorized equipment used during construction shall be checked for oil, fuel, and coolant leaks prior to initiating work. • Implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the project, to en- sure that sediment and synthetic contaminants from construction sites do not enter creek channels. Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: The amount of riparian vegetation trimmed, removed, or disturbed shall be minimized. Native trees (more than 6 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh)) that are removed in riparian areas shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio on-site (to the extent feasible) or within the same water- shed (i.e., Rodeo Creek or Saratoga Creek) using local, native riparian trees. Any revegetation efforts shall be completed prior to the rainy season. The plantings shall be maintained until successfully es- tablished. Mitigation Measure BIO-2c: To avoid the introduction of invasive species into the project site during project construction, contract specification shall include (at a minimum) the following measures: • All earthmoving equipment to be used during project construction shall be thoroughly cleaned before arriving on the project site. • All seeding equipment (i.e., hydroseed trucks), if used on the site, shall be thoroughly rinsed at least three times prior to arriving at the project site and beginning seeding work. • To avoid spreading any non-native invasive species already existing on-site, to off-site areas, all equipment shall be thoroughly cleaned before leaving the site. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct re- moval, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No evidence of wetland hydrology was observed within the project site. The overall level topography of select grassland areas suggests that some shallow depressions identified in these areas may retain mois- ture during much of the rainy season but are not likely to be inundated or saturated with water for more than a few consecutive days. Therefore, the project site does not contain wetlands. Refer to Section IV.b. for a discussion of potential impacts to jurisdictional waters. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wild- life nursery sites? Most wildlife species that occur within the project site are generalists that have adapted well to urban landscapes, although many of these (e.g., western scrub-jay, spotted towhee) also occur in natural habitats (e.g., oak woodland). Bird species observed during the June 15 site visit include the following: snowy egret (Saratoga Creek), American kestrel, mourning dove, Anna’s hummingbird, Nuttall’s woodpecker, black phoebe, western scrub-jay, American crow, bushtit, Bewick’s wren, northern mockingbird, Euro- pean starling, spotted towhee, California towhee, house finch, lesser goldfinch, and American goldfinch. California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Audubon’s cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and burrows of Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) were the only mammals (or mammal signs) 142 143 144 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 43 mately 3,000 feet from the project site adjacent to Saratoga Creek, and prehistoric/historical archaeo- logical site CA-SCL-221/H is approximately 4,200 feet from the project site. Both sites have been identi- fied on the surface. Nine previous studies within ¾-mile of the project site (four along Saratoga Creek, one along Rodeo Creek, and four along Calabazas Creek) did not identify any archaeological sites on the surface. 16 Based on the proximity of the project site to the valley margin, the geological information about the area indicates a low possibility of buried archaeological deposits. No archaeological deposits were identified during the field survey. Therefore, the project site has a low potential to contain subsur- face archaeological deposits. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? No historic above-ground structures are located within or around the project site. Prehistoric or historical resources are not anticipated to be discovered during construction of the proposed trail; however, it is always possible that such resources could be identified during the project construction period. Impacts to unidentified resources could be significant. If resources are discovered, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented, which would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are en- countered during project construction activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redi- rected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the finds and make recommendations. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for California Register of Historical Re- sources eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligi- ble, they shall be avoided by project construction activities, or such effects shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting methods and results of the assessment, and shall provide recom- mendations for the treatment of archaeological materials discovered. The report shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest Information Center. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? No significant (unique) archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Section 21083.2, have been identi- fied in the project site. Archaeological resources are not anticipated to be discovered during project con- struction activities; however, it is always possible that such resources could be identified during the construction period. Impacts to unidentified resources could be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. 16 Caltrans, 1981. Archaeological Survey Report for Orchard Removal at Selected Locations on 04-SCL-85 Post Miles 12.9, 13.2, 13.5/13.7 04-SCL-87 Post Miles 3.7 04402-911036 Cities of Saratoga and San Jose, Santa Clara County. (Caltrans District 4: Environmental Planning Branch); and other reports (refer to Cultural Resources Technical Study for complete list.) 145 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 44 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The sediments that underlie the project site are Holocene (recent - 10,000 years old) and Late Pleistocene (10,000 - 70,000 years old) alluvial sediments.17 The younger Holocene sediments overlie the older Late Pleistocene sediments within the project site, but they can be very thin or not present, (i.e. Late Pleisto- cene sediments may directly underlie the project site soil layer). Late Pleistocene sediments in North America commonly contain vertebrate fossils representative of the Rancholabrean land mammal age. Common Rancholabrean vertebrate fossils are ground sloth, dire wolf, saber-toothed cat, camel, bison, mammoth, horse, rodent, bird, reptile, and amphibian fossils.18 A fossil locality search with the University of California Museum of Paleontology identified three verte- brate fossil localities within 5 miles of the project site, two of which are from geological formations similar to those within the project site. Fossil localities near the project site have yielded mammoth and horse specimens. The Late Pleistocene sediments within and adjacent to the project site have a high potential of containing paleontological resources; therefore, paleontological resources could be discovered during project con- struction activities in the event that such activities were to occur at depths of more than 5 feet. Implemen- tation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that impacts remain at a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If paleontological resources are discovered during project con- struction activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a paleon- tological monitor has assessed the situation and made recommendations regarding their treatment. It is recommended that adverse effects to paleontological resources be avoided by project activi- ties. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their signifi- cance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are signifi- cant, they shall be avoided, or such effects shall be mitigated. Mitigation shall consist of data re- covery, report preparation, fossil curation, and public outreach. The report documenting the methods and results of monitoring should be submitted both to the City of Saratoga and to the pa- leontological repository to which the fossils would be offered for curation, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology, upon project completion. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recog- nition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether or not 17 Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones, Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30’x 60’ quadrangle, California. (Menlo Park: United States Geological Survey, 2000). 18 Savage, Donald, Late Cenozoic Vertebrates of the San Francisco Bay Region. (Berkeley: University of California Bul- letin of the Department of Geological Sciences 28 (10): 215-314, 1951; and other reports (refer to Cultural Resources Technical Study for complete list.) 146 147 148 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 47 Fault) is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the proposed Rodeo Creek bridge crossing. A 1994 map prepared by William Lettis and Associates indicates that there is a “photolineament” of the Monte Vista/Shannon Fault that runs through the project site in the vicinity of the Rodeo Creek bridge crossing. If this local fault trace is active, there would be a moderate to high risk of fault rupture at the site. However, the actual risk to individuals and the trail itself associated with fault rupture is expected to be low due to: 1) the relatively low slip rates associated with the Monte Vista/Shannon Fault system and 2) the use of the project for recreation and not for habitation. No mitigation measure would be required to reduce this less-than-significant impact. ii) Groundshaking. Because it affects a much broader area, ground shaking, rather than surface fault rupture, is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. Three major factors affect the severity (inten- sity) of ground shaking at a site in an earthquake: the size (magnitude) of the earthquake; the distance to the fault that generated the earthquake; and the geologic materials that underlie the site. Thick, loose soils, such as bay mud, tend to amplify and prolong ground shaking. Seismic ground shaking associated with a large earthquake on either the San Andreas Fault or Monte Vista/Shannon Fault is considered to be a hazard in the project site. Peak ground accelerations of 0.55 acceleration under gravity (g) to 0.66 g would occur within the project site. Incorporation of the recom- mendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project site into the project design and adherence to applicable construction codes would reduce impacts associated with groundshaking to a less-than-significant level. iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Ground failure hazards of potential concern at the site include earthquake-induced settlement and lurching. All of these hazards involve a displacement of the ground surface resulting from a loss of strength or failure of the underlying materials due to ground shaking. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking. Due to the loss of strength, the soil acquires a “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie rela- tively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay fraction) may also liquefy. The area in the vicinity of the Saratoga Creek bridge crossing within the project site is located in the liquefaction hazard zone that is mapped by the California Geological Survey. The vicinity of the proposed Rodeo Creek bridge is not located in a mapped liquefaction hazard zone. However, the Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the project site indicated that both the proposed Saratoga Creek and Rodeo Creek bridge crossing have a high potential for liquefaction. The results of liquefaction could include dynamic settlement, sand boils, ground fissures, and lateral deformations that could damage the proposed trail and bridges. Ground shaking can also induce settlement and densification of loose granular soils above the water table. Lurching, or lurch cracking, is the cracking of the ground surface in soft, saturated material as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking. The potential for lurching and differential compaction due to earthquakes is considered to be moderate to high in the project site. Incorporation of the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project site into the project design and adher- ence to applicable construction codes would reduce impacts associated with liquefaction, settlement, and densification to a less-than-significant level. 149 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 48 iv) Landslides. The project site is located in a valley and is not immediately adjacent to steep hillside slopes. Therefore, the project site is not susceptible to significant landslides that would cause a risk to human safety. However, the potential for seismically-induced landsliding of the banks of Saratoga Creek and Rodeo Creek is considered to be high. Incorporation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation into the proposed bridge design, specifically those pertaining to bridge foundation design, would reduce impacts associated with potential creek bank landslides to a less-than-significant level. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil is greatest during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is completed and new vegetation is established, or trail covering mate- rial (e.g., decomposed granite) is applied. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared as part of the project and would reduce soil erosion associated with project implementation to a less-than-significant level. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, lique- faction or collapse? The proposed trail and all associated trail features would be constructed in compliance with the recom- mendations in the Geotechnical Investigation and applicable construction codes and requirements intended to guard against any adverse impacts resulting from ground failure and ground instability, including liquefaction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to ground instability that would endanger life or property. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), cre- ating substantial risks to life or property? The loam-clay soils within the project site have the potential to expand and contract. Expansion and con- traction of soil could damage the trail. However, the proposed trail and all structures built on the project site would be constructed in compliance with recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation and applicable construction codes and requirements intended to guard against any adverse impacts resulting from expansive soils. The development of the proposed project on expansive soils would not result in adverse impacts to life or property. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be installed on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to soils associated with the use of such wastewater treatment systems. 150 151 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 50 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or dis- posal of hazardous materials, although hazardous materials would be involved on a temporary basis in both construction and operation of the trail. During the construction period, hazardous materials would be used for equipment operation and possibly maintenance; these materials could include lubricants, sol- vents, paint, and fuels. During operation of the trail, landscaping maintenance could include the use of pesticides or herbicides on a routine basis at the trail staging areas. Landscape maintenance would be undertaken either by the City or by City contractors. All landscaping maintenance activities on City- owned land are performed in accordance with the City’s Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM Plan).28 The IPM Plan prohibits use of specific pesticides (diazinon and chlorpyralid), and requires annual training of pesticide applicators, record-keeping procedures, and annual review of pesticide use. All City contrac- tors are required to follow the IPM Plan. Adherence to the requirements of the City’s IPM Plan would ensure that the project does not create significant hazards though the routine use of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Technical Study conducted by Baseline Environmental Consulting identified the following hazardous materials issues of concern on the project site: 1) potential soil contamination associated with railroad activities (including organic compounds, metals, and fuels used in conjunction with ballast and railroad ties), which have occurred on the site since at least 1939; and 2) potential soil contamination associated with the use of agricultural chemicals in select portions of the site (portions of the site were used for orchards from at least 1939 to approximately 1965). In response to these concerns, Baseline conducted a limited soil investigation to develop more data on potential site soil contamination and to determine whether the presence of soil contaminants would pose a health hazard or risk to project construction workers and future potential trail users. The soil investigation included the collection and analysis of soil samples at eight sites throughout the trail corridor. Analysis was conducted in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Interim Guidance for Sampling Former Agricultural Fields for School Sites, which provides protective soil screening protocol for school sites, and, as such, is also appropriate for sites where children and other sensitive receptors could come into contact with contaminated soils (such as the project site). The soil samples were analyzed for a wide range of total petroleum hydrocarbons, or- ganochlorine pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, and total metals. Contaminant ranges were compared to San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), which provide contaminant soil levels that are most protective of environmental and human health. In summary, the results of the limited soil investigation indicate that development of the proposed project, and the exposure of construction workers and trail users to soil within the project site would not pose a significant long-term threat to human health or the environment. None of the metal concentrations for samples collected at the site exceeded their respective total threshold limit concentrations. In addition, all of the shallow soil samples that were collected contained low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel and motor oil, well below ESLs for residential uses. One soil sample contained an organochlorine pesticide (heptachlor epoxide) at the ESL, but this would not pose a risk to human health or the environ- ment. No semi-volatile organic compounds or chlorinated herbicides were identified above laboratory 28 City of Saratoga, 2002 (updated 2004). Integrated Pest Management Plan. June 27. 152 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 51 reporting limits. No mitigation would be required to reduce effects associated with less-than-significant levels of soil contaminants. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? During the construction period, hazardous materials used by construction equipment (e.g., trucks, bull- dozers, scrapers) or equipment maintenance activities could result in accidental releases to either the ground surface or to surface waters at creek crossings. Accidental releases of these materials could sig- nificantly affect soil and water quality. For construction activities, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required in conformance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharges associated with construction activities (General Construction Permit). Part of the requirements for the SWPPP includes development of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent releases of pollutants to water bodies. A SWPPP would be prepared as part of the project. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields. Concerns have been expressed that trail users could be exposed to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) from power transmission lines along the proposed trail. There is a lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding potential public health impacts of EMFs at the levels generated by power transmission lines. There are no federal or State standards or standards ac- cepted by the public health community for defining health risk from EMFs from transmission lines. Given the highly speculative nature of any such potential risks, EMF is not evaluated in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as a CEQA issue and no discussion is provided of potential impacts and a level of significance determination. However, recognizing that there is public interest regarding EMFs from power lines, information regarding EMFs associated with the transmission lines is provided in this section. The project site is a utility corridor containing the Metcalf-Monta Vista Transmission Corridor, which runs from San Jose to Cupertino. The corridor contains four 230 kilovolt (kV) lines supported on trans- mission poles that range in height from approximately 100 feet to approximately 135 feet. These trans- mission lines emit EMFs, which also occur naturally in the environment. For more than 20 years, studies have been conducted that explore the relationship between EMFs and human health, specifically connec- tions between EMFs associated with power lines and cancer rates (causal effects have also been explored between EMFs and other diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and Lou Gehrig’s disease). The research results remain inconclusive. Several national and international panels have conducted reviews of data from multiple studies and have found that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that EMFs causes any form of cancer. Most recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) both classified EMFs as a possible carcinogen, based on a comprehensive review of existing studies related to EMFs from powerlines and potential health risks.29 Some of the studies took into account risk from prolonged exposure to “back- ground” levels of EMFs. Typically, EMFs are measured at “background” levels about 3 to 4 feet away from an electrical appliance, 60 to 200 feet from an electrical distribution line, and about 300 to 500 feet from a transmission line. The DHS study in particular, which did not quantify degree of risk, generated a 29 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 1999. Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Fre- quency Electric and Magnetic Fields. May. California Department of Health Services (DHS), 2002. An Evaluation of the Possible Risks from Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations, and Appliances. June. 153 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 52 substantial level of controversy among the reviewing community of scientists and researchers, expressing a significant level of uncertainty regarding the health risk posed by EMF.30 Presently there are no applicable regulations related to EMF levels from power lines and no scientific consensus regarding the nature of any health effects or the exposure level associated with those health effects. As there are no health-based or regulatory risk standards for EMF, describing impacts of the current or potential effects of EMF would necessarily be speculative in nature. In addition, trail users would be only temporarily exposed to higher levels of EMF. Therefore, if one exists, any potential health risk would be minimized. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest school to the project site is Blue Hills Elementary, which is approximately ¼-mile from the project site. Four school districts serve the vicinity of the project site: Cupertino Union School District, Fremont Union High School District, Saratoga Union School District, and the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District. None of the four school districts have plans for expansion or new school facilities within one-quarter mile of the project.31,32,33,34 The proposed project does not include facilities that would permanently result in emissions of hazardous materials or the regular handling of hazardous waste. Haz- ardous materials, including pesticides, fuels, and paint, could be used temporarily on the site, including during the construction period. However, the use of these materials would not pose a hazard to students at schools in the vicinity of the project site. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the pub- lic or the environment? An environmental database research service was contracted to search federal, State, and local regulatory agency databases pertaining to hazardous material use and releases on properties at and near the project site during the preparation of the Hazardous Materials Technical Study for the project.35 The project site was not identified on any federal, State, and local hazardous materials databases, including the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 30 California Department of Health Services (DHS), 2002. Public Comments and Responses to: An Evaluation of the Pos- sible Risks from Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations, and Appliances. June. 31 Hausman, Richard, 2006. Chief Business Official for Cupertino Union School District. Personal communication with Baseline staff. July 7. 32 Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), 2006. Long Range Plan. Website: fuhsd.org 33 Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District (LGSUHSD), 2006. Bond Information. Website: http://www.lgsuhsd.org 34 Saratoga Union School District (SUSD), 2006. About Our District. Website: www.susd.k12.ca.us. 35 Environmental Data Resources (EDR), 2006. Environmental Database Report – The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, Saratoga de Anza Trail, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070, Inquiry Number: 1699542.2s. June 19. 154 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 53 f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The Santa Clara County Airports Administration operates and maintains three general aviation airports – Reid-Hillview Airport, Palo Alto Airport, and South County Airport – within the cities of San Jose, Palo Alto, and San Martin, respectively.36 Mineta San Jose International is in the City of San Jose.37 Moffett Field is in the City of Mountain View. Each of these airports is a minimum of 7 miles from the project site. The project is not located within the safety zones for any of these public airports according to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission.38 g) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No private airstrips were noted near the project site in a series of historical USGS topographic maps for the area dating from 1902 to 1991.39 In addition, the project site is not in the vicinity of an existing pri- vate airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a private airstrip-related safety hazard for people using the proposed trail. h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Santa Clara County Fire department indicates that the project site is not part of an emergency evacuation route.40 Therefore, the proposed project would not impair or interfere with an adopted emer- gency response or evacuation plan. Because the proposed project would result in the development of a trail that would offer an alternative to roadway or freeway travel by motor vehicle, it could enhance evacuation to or from Saratoga and its immediate surroundings in the event of an emergency such as an earthquake. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Based on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Saratoga General Plan mapping of wild- land fire risk areas, the project site is not in an area subject to wildland fire hazards.41 The proposed pro- ject would not be expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from a wildland fire. 36 County of Santa Clara, Airports Department, 2006. Airport Master Plans. Website: www.countyairports.org. July 5. 37 Mineta San Jose International Airport, 2006. Airport Fast Facts. Website: www.sjc.org. July 5. 38 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 1992. Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports, amended 2005. 39 EDR, 2006. op. cit. 40 Justice, John, 2006. Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist, Santa Clara Valley Fire Department, no emergency evacua- tion routes affected. 41 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2006. Wildland Urban Interface-Fire Threatened Communities (mapping of CDF 2003 Fire Hazards data).Website: www.quake.abag.ca.gov. July 14. 155 156 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 55 Construction Phase. The project would cover a total area of approximately 2.3 acres with decomposed granite. The area of decomposed granite is expected to be wider than 12 feet at the creek crossings and trailheads. Additional areas, such as those used for construction staging, parking, and the installation of signage, could also be disturbed. Under existing conditions, the trail corridor is unpaved and crosses two creeks and two roads. In addition to the trail alignment, the project would also include construction of two bridges and the installation of signage and minor visitor amenities. The total disturbed area would therefore be approximately 2.15 acres. Construction activities could result in the release of soils and contamination of runoff (and surface waters downstream). However, this impact would be reduced through preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is part of the project. The SWPPP would ensure that soil erosion is minimized and hazardous construction materials are adequately contained. Operation Phase. Operation of the pedestrian and bicycle trail would not be expected to contribute substantial pollutant loading to surface water runoff. Since motor vehicles would not routinely use the trail, automobile-related pollutants (oil, grease, and metals) would not be generated in significant amounts by the project. Minor amounts of sediment (from atmospheric deposition) and litter could accumulate on the trail. Even though the pollutant loading source is minimal, under current NPDES requirements, the project would be required to treat runoff to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). In this case, treatment of the trail runoff to the MEP could be accomplished by standard trail design and construction methods. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the trail’s impacts to runoff water quality to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: The trail shall be constructed so that runoff from the trail is not concen- trated, but diffused into buffer area adjoining the trail. To the maximum extent practicable, runoff from the trail shall not be directed into the creeks without prior treatment (e.g. adequate residence time in a grassy swale or detention area). Swales and buffer areas adequate to treat runoff from the trail shall be clearly depicted in the final project design plans. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater ta- ble level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The surface soils along over 90 percent of the trail alignment are mapped as Arbuckle-Pleasanton soils. These soils consist of well to somewhat excessively drained, medium-textured, gravelly soils, developed in gravelly alluvium.42 The soils have been disturbed by construction of the railroad tracks and may have been compacted, reducing their infiltration capacity. However, substantial recharge can occur through this soil type. The trail would be surfaced with decomposed granite, an essentially impervious material. Therefore, the project would reduce the infiltration capacity of the surface in those locations where decomposed granite is placed. However, the localized increased runoff volumes from the trail surfaced with decomposed granite would not be directed to a storm drainage inlet, but rather would flow in a diffused manner to the sides of the trail. 42 US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1968, Soils of Santa Clara County. 157 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 56 The project does not propose any use of local groundwater supplies (e.g. by installation and pumping of water supply wells), and therefore would not cause any lowering of the groundwater table as a result of groundwater extraction. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The proposed project would not alter the course of either Rodeo Creek or Saratoga Creek. However, the trail proposed by the project would cross the creeks via bridges; therefore some construction activity near the creek banks (i.e. approximately 6 feet from top of bank) would occur. The creeks would be bridged by the placement of pre-manufactured truss bridges at each creek crossing. The proposed bridges would be constructed just upstream of the current railroad bridges.43 The bridge across Rodeo Creek would be substantially longer than the railroad bridge nearby. The bridge over Saratoga Creek would be approximately the same length as the existing bridge, or shorter. The types of bridges proposed by the project are typically fabricated completely or partially off-site. The bridges would span the entire creek, and bridge piers would be located at least 6 feet from the top of the creek bank. The truss bridge would then be lifted by a crane and placed on the piers, spanning the creek. The process of installing the bridge, which could include drilling and placement of piles or piers and/or excavation and concrete form work, could result in the release of sediment and/or construction material (e.g. concrete, fuels, lubricants) to the active channel. Compliance with the requirements of the General Construction Permit, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP (included as part of the proposed project) that addresses construction activities near the active creek channels, would reduce the potential impacts to surface water quality during the construction of the bridge to a less-than-significant level. Because the bridge piers would be installed at least 6 feet from the top of the creek bank, and the SWPPP would effectively minimize soil erosion during the construction period, the proposed bridges are not expected to cause hydromodification impacts to the creeks in the area by increasing the rate and volume of runoff and decreasing the capacity of the creek channel. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Substantial alteration of the course of either Rodeo Creek or Saratoga Creek is not proposed as part of the project. As described in Section VIII.c, above, the project would require the construction of bridge piers; these improvements would not encroach into the 100-year flood hazard zones for Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek. Flood zones are discussed in more detail in Section VIII.h, below. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm- water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 43 Harvancik, Iveta, Associate Engineer, City of Saratoga., 2006. De Anza Trail, Memorandum: Proposed Trail Bridges. 158 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 57 The proposed trail would be a relatively flat surface covered with decomposed granite. Runoff would drain by sheetflow to the adjacent porous material and closely follow the current contours of the site.44 The localized increased runoff volumes from the decomposed granite trail would not be directed to a storm drainage inlet, but rather would flow in a diffused manner to the sides of the trail. The small amount of increased runoff from the trail would be expected to infiltrate into unpaved areas around the trail. No additional mitigation would be required. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Refer to Section VIII.a. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Bound- ary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No housing is proposed by the project and therefore no placement of housing in a floodplain would occur. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? As described above, two new bridges are proposed at the creek crossings within the project site. Preliminary site plans and bridge specifications do not indicate exact locations or engineering de- signs for the bridges. The following discussion of the flooding impacts of the project is based on the Location Hydraulic Floodplain Study prepared by Baseline Environmental Consulting in March, 200745 and reports on the 100-year water surface elevation of Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek (at the proposed bridge crossings), prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler Civil Engineers in November and December, 2006.46 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (July 3, 1997) indicates that the 100-year flood zone at Rodeo Creek Bridge would not exceed the banks of the creek. The hydraulic analysis of the 100-year water elevation of Rodeo Creek (at the proposed bridge crossing) confirms that the 100-year flood is contained within the banks of the channel. The FIRM indicates that the proposed Saratoga Creek bridge site is located in flood hazard Zone A, where no base flood elevation is determined. Based on the FIRM, and the hydraulic analysis of the 100-year water elevation of Saratoga Creek, the 100-year flood would be contained within the banks of the channel. The piers of the two bridges would be constructed at least 6 feet from the top of the creek banks. There- fore, bridge construction would occur entirely outside of the 100-year flood zone. The 100-year water surface elevation is not expected to exceed the elevation of the bottom of the bridges because the bridge 44 Saratoga, 2006. op .cit. 45 Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2007. Location Hydraulic Floodplain Study, De Anza Trail Site, Saratoga, Cali- fornia. March. 46 Schaaf and Wheeler Civil Engineers, 2006. Technical Memorandum, 100-Year Water Surface Elevation of Saratoga Creek at Proposed Bridge Crossing. November. Schaaf and Wheeler Civil Engineers, 2006. Technical Memorandum, 100-Year Water Surface Elevation of Saratoga Creek at Proposed Bridge Crossing. December. 159 160 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 59 Court, but there are few other pedestrian access points in the rest of the project site. Especially in the western portion of the site, accessing the existing informally used trail from adjacent residential neighbor- hoods requires a detour to one of the trail termini, the two streets that cross the site, or the pedestrian gate. However, it should be noted that the railroad tracks preceded the established community that currently exists on either side of the tracks. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the number of pedestrian gates into the project site (or result in improvements to the existing pedestrian gate), but would enhance access to the trail corridor through: the development of a small parking lot adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; the installation of signage; and development of a formal trail on the site of the current informally-used path. The proposed project would connect to other bicycle routes in the vicinity of the site, including bike routes along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue. Because the proposed project would enhance bicycle and pedestrian access along the entirety of the pro- ject site, and would not impede vehicle traffic on the roadways that cross the project site, it would not physically divide the residential communities around the corridor. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project site is currently designated for Single Family Residential uses in the City of Saratoga General Plan and R-1-12,500 in the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. Community facilities, such as parks, are consistent with the purposes of the zoning district, per the definition in Section 1506.160 of the Zoning Code, and per Article 1512.010d, which states that one of the purposes of single-family residential districts is to provide space for community facilities to enhance residential areas. The General Plan’s Open Space Element states: “The Southern [Union] Pacific Railroad right-of-way presents an opportunity for linear open space. The development of trails along this corridor, as well as the creation of connections to the regional network of trails and pathways which link many of the area’s large regional parks, will give residents of Saratoga an unparalleled opportunity to enjoy significant open space and recreational opportunities in the baylands, hillside areas, and throughout the Santa Clara Valley.” Implementation Program l (Rails to Trails) states: “The City should work for the future conversion of the Southern [Union] Pacific spur line as provided for in the Federal Rails-to-Trails law.” The proposed project would represent a first step in completing this trail. The planning-related General Plan policies listed in Table 1 apply to the proposed project. 161 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 60 Table 1: Policy Consistency Analysis Policy Consistent with Project? OS.1.0. Preserve the low density and natural character of Saratoga by the inclusion of permanent open space and landscaping within the City. Consistent. The project would create permanent open space in Saratoga. OS.4.0 Provide public open space and recreation areas accessible to all residents, particularly those in the more densely developed residential areas. Consistent. The project would provide accessible open space to residents in neighborhoods surrounding the project site and other portions of Saratoga. OS.2.4. Through implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the City shall control the removal or destruction of trees. Consistent with Mitigation. According to the Preliminary Arborist Report prepared by the Community Development Department, existing vegetation, especially native trees and shrubs, would be preserved where possible. However, the project could adversely affect trees of a size subject to the City of Saratoga’s Tree Ordinance (for private development projects). These trees would be avoided if feasible. Implemen- tation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. CO.3.1. The City shall strive to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats when considering proposals for development plans for active recreation. Consistent with Mitigation. Construction of the trail could adversely affect Pacific pond turtle, Cooper’s hawk, and ripar- ian areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. OS General Policy 4. Improve and upgrade existing munici- pal open space, parks and trails to serve the current and future recreation needs of the community. These shall be consistent with the preservation of open space. Consistent. The project would improve and upgrade an exist- ing utility right-of-way. OS.20. Regional Trails Network. A regional system of hiking, bicycling and horseback riding trails shall be encour- aged which includes trails within and between all City, County, State and regional parks, and other publicly owned open space lands, as well as trails providing access from the City of Saratoga to these lands. Consistent. The proposed trail would connect to bike lanes in Saratoga and provide access to numerous regional trails in Santa Clara Valley. OS.25. Trail Location and Design. Trails shall be located, designed, and developed with sensitivity to the resources and environmental hazards of the area they traverse, as well as their potential impacts on adjacent lands and private property, including potential impacts to property owners’ privacy and security. Trails shall be designed to City speci- fications; require minimal grading; and include effective erosion control measures. Consistent with Mitigation. The proposed trail would be constructed on the site of an informally used path and would not adversely affect private property. Construction of the proposed trail could affect water quality and biological resources, and could result in the release of contaminated soil. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant impact: Mitiga- tion Measures AES-1, AIR-1, BIO 1 to BIO-3, GEO-1, HAZ- 1, and HYD-3. Many of these policies were adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental impacts. Table 1 also provides a summary of the consistency of the project with these key policies. As discussed in the table, the proposed project would not (with the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study/Miti- gated Negative Declaration) conflict with policies adopted for the purpose of minimizing or avoiding a significant environmental impact. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 162 163 164 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 63 approximately eight to 24 hours of actual equipment operation). Bridge construction would occur over several weeks (per bridge). Construction activities could temporarily expose residential uses to noise levels in excess of the standards specified in the Noise Ordinance. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which includes the requirements in the City’s Noise Ordinance, and is intended to address construction noise in residen- tial districts, would reduce temporary construction-period noise impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures: • In accordance with Article 7-30-060(a) of the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, construction activities (including earthmoving and grading) within the project site shall be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not occur on Sundays or weekday holidays. • During construction, all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. • All stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located as far as practical from residences in the vicinity of the project site. Such equipment shall be acoustically shielded using standard plywood barriers, noise control blankets, or other appropriate equipment. • Whenever feasible, quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall be utilized. Train Noise. According to the Saratoga General Plan, 65 dBA noise levels extend approximately 27 feet from the centerline of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Sixty dBA noise levels extend approximately 58 feet away from the center line of the railroad tracks. Therefore, as with current conditions, the project site would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the daytime standards for outdoor open space listed in the Noise Ordinance (60 dBA). However, trains use the tracks only three times a week, generally on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule. In addition, train use of the tracks is expected to end within 10 to 20 years. Trail users would be exposed to high levels of train noise only periodically, and for a small amount of time. This type and duration of noise exposure would not result in adverse health effects, and would be considered a less-than-significant impact. Higher Ambient Noise Levels. The proposed project is expected to modestly increase trail usage. As noted in the project description, an informal trail on the site is currently used by cyclists, pedestrians, and joggers. Because the proposed trail would be somewhat short compared to other regional trails (approxi- mately 1.3 miles), and is not expected to draw significant numbers of out-of-town users due to the lack of significant scenic features (e.g., Bay shoreline, unimpeded San Francisco skyline views), the proposed project is not anticipated to bring a substantial number of new users to the project site. As occurs under existing conditions, most users would travel along the corridor and would not linger in one place for substantial periods. Therefore, ambient noise levels are not expected to substantially increase after implementation of the project. Residents in the vicinity of the site have expressed concern that the proposed project could attract rowdy users that would increase area noise levels beyond existing levels, and potentially above the noise thresh- olds established in the Noise Ordinance. Substantial increases in noise in the vicinity of the trail made by trail users would be prohibited by the existing Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance restricts a person 165 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 64 from causing, producing, or causing to be produced, in any residential district, any single-event noise more than 6 dBA above the ambient noise level at the location where the single-event noise source is measured. Therefore, this section of the Noise Ordinance would restrict trail users from making noise that increases the ambient noise level in adjacent residential districts by more than 6 dBA. The 6 dBA thresh- old (which is relatively protective of sensitive receptors considering that 3 dBA changes in noise are imperceptible to the average human ear) would ensure that any significant increases in ambient noise caused by trail users could be addressed. This provision of the Noise Ordinance would be enforced by resident calls to the Sheriff’s Department, and regular Sherriff patrols along the trail corridor. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Refer to Section XI.a. Residents adjacent to the project site could be exposed to temporary increased lev- els of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise during the construction period. These increases are expected to occur infrequently, and for only short durations during the construction period, which is expected to extend over a period of 10 to 30 weeks. Construction of the proposed trail is expected to proceed in sections, at a rate of approximately 50 to 150 linear feet per day. Therefore, most residences adjacent to the project site could be exposed to temporary increased levels of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise, but would be exposed to high noise levels for only one to three days (or approxi- mately 8 to 24 hours of actual equipment operation). Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. Train Noise. Trail users would also be exposed to excessive levels of ground borne noise and vibration when trains utilize the Union Pacific Railroad tracks adjacent to the project site. Trains use the tracks approximately three times a week. Based on the infrequency and short duration of train activity, trail users would not be substantially adversely affected by increased levels of train noise. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Refer to Section XI.a. Trail users could permanently increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the trail. However, any sporadic increase in noise would be restricted to 6 dBA or less, in accordance with the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, and would be considered less-than-significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Refer to Section XI.a. Construction activities on the site could increase ambient noise levels. However, this increased noise level would be expected to last one to three days (or approximately 8 to 24 hours of actual equipment operation) per residence. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the expected short-term increase in ambient noise to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. 166 167 168 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 67 the project site on South De Anza Boulevard. The Sheriff’s Office has indicated that it could adequately provide services to the project site via routine, periodic patrol checks, similar to other parks and trails in the area. Implementation of the proposed project is expected to modestly increase the number of trail users from existing levels. Residents in the vicinity of the project site have expressed concern that the project, due to an increased visitation rate, would increase crime in the area. In response to these concerns, a representa- tive of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office reviewed applicable studies on crime rates around other public trails.49 These studies included investigations of the following trails/agencies: • Burke-Gilman Trail (Seattle, Washington Engineering Department, 1987) • Rails-Trails and Safe Communities (National Park Service, 1998) • Greenway Trail (Colorado State Parks, 1995) • Brush Creek Trail (Santa Rosa, 1992). The Sheriff’s Office concluded “that the existence of a trail has little, if any, affect on crime experienced by adjacent property owners. Law enforcement officials believe that there is no greater incidence of crime to homes along trails and pathways.” In addition, the Sheriff’s Office contacted three local police agencies regarding their experience with local trails and public safety: 1) Mountain View Police Department, which responds to calls for service along the Stevens Creek Trail; 2) Campbell Police Department, for the Los Gatos Creek Trail; and 3) Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department, for the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The contacted police departments corroborated the evidence of the trail safety literature review and reported that they “have not experienced increased crime rates in the neighborhoods adjacent to the trails.” This research suggests that the proposed project would not increase crime rates in neighborhoods adjacent to the trail, or otherwise substantially increase the need for police services. Schools. The proposed project does not involve the construction of housing or employment-generating facilities. Therefore, it would not increase demand for school services. Parks. The proposed project entails the development of additional open space in Saratoga. While the trail could increase the use of parks in the vicinity of the project site (e.g., Congress Springs Park), and other trails in the area, the modest increase in trail use would not result in deterioration of recreation facilities. The proposed project could accommodate recreational demand that would otherwise be absorbed by other recreational facilities in the area. Other Public Facilities. The proposed project is a recreational facility that would not increase demand for public facilities, such as libraries, beyond those discussed above. 49 Hirokawa, John, 2005. Letter to John Cherbone, Saratoga Public Works Director, from Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. May 11. 169 170 171 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 70 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The following discussion first addresses hazards associated with the adjacency of railroad tracks and the proposed trail and then discusses hazards associated with roadway at-grade crossings. Adjacency of Railroad Tracks and Trail. The proposed trail would be located a minimum of approxi- mately 50 feet from the center line of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks that are adjacent to the project site. No fencing or landscaping is proposed that would separate the trail from the railroad tracks, which are used by slow-moving freight trains approximately three times a week. The trail and railroad tracks would be separated by loose gravel and soil within the existing railroad right-of-way. Although no features would prevent bicyclists and pedestrians from crossing the railroad tracks within the trail corridor, this sort of crossing is expected to occur infrequently after trail construction due to the low number of access points on either side of the trail corridor (e.g., only a few streets and sidewalks intersect the trail) and the loose gravel substrate within the railroad right-of-way and the railroad tracks themselves, which require bicyclists crossing the corridor along a north-south axis to dismount. The lack of a barrier is not expected to pose a significant safety hazard to trail users for three key reasons. First, as noted above, north/south crossings of the corridor and railroad tracks by trail users are expected to be infrequent due to the limited number of trail access points on either side of the tracks (Mitigation Measure TRAF-6, below, would address potentially hazardous conditions at one key pedestrian cross- point within the corridor). This expectation is supported by observations of current trail corridor users, who typically cross the railroad tracks at roadway crossings, along with cars and bicycles. Second, trains run on the tracks adjacent to the project site only three times a week, and are relatively slow moving. Trail users would only occasionally encounter trains, and if trail crossings were attempted, there would usually be adequate time to avoid a collision. Sight lines along the trail corridor are very good due to the gener- ally sparse vegetation in the right-of-way and the straight axis of the tracks, allowing trail users to see oncoming trains from a distance. Third, the trail would be separated from the tracks by at least 50 feet of vacant space; this physical separation would in and of itself discourage users from crossing the tracks, or coming within an unsafe distance of moving trains. These conclusions are supported by the most comprehensive study to-date of safety issues and other considerations for trails located next to railroad tracks, Rails-With-Trails: Lessons Learned, prepared by Alta Planning + Design for the United States Department of Transportation in 2002. The report, which was based on an extensive literature review and focused case studies of trails in diverse settings through- out the United States, recommends that the appropriate setback between railroad tracks and trails be determined on a case-by-case basis, “taking into account type [of trail], speed and frequency of trains; corridor separation technique; topography; site distance; maintenance requirements; and historical problems.” There are no standard regulations for minimum setbacks, although railroad companies sometimes maintain setback requirements for trails on railroad property. The Union Pacific Railroad would require a 25-foot setback for trails proposed on its property; however, it does not set standards for trail setbacks on adjacent property.50 Of the trails studied in the report, trail setbacks from the centerline of railroad tracks ranged from less than 7 feet to as much as 100 feet, with an average of approximately 33 feet. 50 Design Studios West, 2004. Memorandum from Teresa Whittemore to Bob Eck. October 5. 172 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 71 The report preparers also attempted to determine if narrower setback distances were correlated with safety concerns. However, in part due to the general lack of reported safety problems (including claims and crashes) on trails adjacent to railroad tracks, no correlation was found. Three trails analyzed in the Alta Planning report have similar characteristics to the proposed project; case studies of these trails suggest that the lack of fencing between the proposed trail and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks would not result in significant safety hazards to trail users. The first trail project is an extension of the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle, most of which has been completed and is in-use. The project is a 4-mile extension of an existing 13-mile trail that runs through urbanized neighborhoods north of the city’s downtown. The trail extension has a projected usage of 1,000 to 2,000 people per day and is adjacent to railroad tracks with freight trains that run two to three times per week at a speed of approximately 10 miles per hour. While fencing has been installed along portions of the trail, other segments have no fencing (or barriers), or are separated from the railroad tracks by only parking lots. The trail is set back approximately 10 to 25 feet from the active railroad tracks, and no significant safety problems have been identified, even in places where there is no barrier between the railroad tracks and the trail. The second trail with characteristics similar to the proposed project is the Cottonbelt Trail, a 10-mile partially-completed multi-use path in the suburbs of Dallas-Fort Worth, 18 miles from the city’s down- town. The trail is set back 25 feet from the center line of the railroad tracks, is only slightly grade- separated, and is not fenced. No significant safety concerns have been identified. The third similar trail is the Platte River Multi-Use Trail, which runs from downtown Denver along the Platte River. Approximately 1 mile of the trail runs adjacent to railroad tracks used by Denver Regional Transit District commuter trains running at a speed of 10 miles per hour. The trail is at least 25 feet from the railroad track centerlines, no fencing or formal separation has been installed, and no significant safety concerns have been identified. At-Grade Crossings. The proposed project includes several at-grade crossings of local streets. In general, these streets would not pose safety hazards to users of the proposed trail. Each crossing is analyzed in detail below. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The crossing at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road represents the western terminus of the trail. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is a four-lane arterial with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Traffic is heavy on this roadway with an average daily traffic volume of 24,588 vehicle trips. Trail users exiting the trail at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and traveling north would need to exit the trail and travel northbound to Sea Gull Way. Given the high speed and heavy traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, to provide for a safe crossing, trail users with destinations south of the trail would also be required to travel northbound to Sea Gull Way, and cross Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at the signalized intersection. This required detour could pose a hazard to trail users. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would direct trail users and provide for a safe crossing at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City shall add pedestrian striping and pedestrian signal head indicators for the east-west movement at the inter- section of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Sea Gull Way. To direct pedestri- ans and bicyclists to use the designated crossing and avoid crossing else- where, the City shall also install at the end of the western terminus of the trail R9-2 173 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 72 sign “R9-2” (“Use crosswalk” with arrow) or “R9-3b” (“Cross Only At Cross Walks”), as de- picted in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and illustrated at right. Trail Terminus. The proposed trail would be covered with decomposed granite starting at the trailhead at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and continuing on for 0.57-mile where, due to right of way constraints, the trail would abruptly end. This could create a hazard for users expecting to reach destinations along the corridor beyond the end of the trail. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this hazard to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: The City shall install signage stating “Trail Dead Ends 0.6-mile” at the entrance to the trail near Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Cox Avenue. The portion of the trail surfaced with decomposed granite ends approximately 650 feet northwest of Cox Avenue and then resumes approximately 625 feet southwest of Cox Avenue. The trail would not cross Cox Avenue. However, the roadway is within the trail corridor. The speed limit on Cox Avenue in the vicinity of the project site is 35; average daily traffic is approximately 8500 trips per day. No accidents at the intersection of the trail corridor and Cox Avenue involving conflicts between bikes/pedestrians and motorists have occurred in the past 5 years.51 Pedestrian and bicycle improvements are not currently recommended at this intersection because the City does not have ownership of the right- of- way for the portion of the existing service road that may be used informally by trail users. Should the City acquire the right-of-way or an easement over the right-of-way at a future date, the City should evaluate the appropriate design for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at this location. Glen Brae Drive. The portion of the trail covered with decomposed granite would begin approximately 450 feet southwest of Cox Avenue and continue southwest to Glen Brae Drive. Glen Brae Drive is a two- lane residential roadway with observed speeds averaging between 25 and 30 mph. Average daily traffic is approximately 1,630 trips per day. Trail users who access the trail from Glen Brae Drive could be exposed to hazardous conditions due to the unexpected abrupt end in the portion of the trail surfaced with decomposed granite. This situation could create a hazard for users expecting to reach destinations along the corridor, beyond the portion of the trail surfaced with decomposed granite. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this hazard to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: The City shall install signage stating “Trail Dead Ends 0.3-mile” east of Glen Brae Drive. Trail users would be required to cross Glen Brae Drive to access both sides of the trail. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce vehicle/pedestrian and vehi- cle/bicyclist conflicts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: The City shall install a standard crosswalk consisting of two parallel white solid lines 12 inches wide spaced 8 feet apart at the Glen Brae crossing. A crosswalk warning sign shall also be installed to alert motorists of the pedestrian crossing. The sign “W11-2,” as depicted in MUTCD and illustrated at right, shall be used to alert motorists about the cross- ing and shall be installed at a location that would provide adequate advance warning for drivers. 51 Harvacik, Iveta, 2007. Associate Engineer, City of Saratoga. Personal communication with Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger. March. W11-2 174 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 73 The recommended layout of the crosswalk at Glen Brae Drive is angled instead of straight because this layout would direct pedestrians to look in the direction of oncoming traffic and would help them be more aware of approaching vehicles. This design could also assist in reducing the speed of a crossing bicyclist. This design would also connect the trail ends at Glen Brae Drive, which would be off-set. Saratoga Avenue. The eastern terminus of the trail would occur at Saratoga Avenue. Trail users would access or exit the project site by using the signalized crossing at the intersection of Dagmar Drive and Saratoga Avenue. Access to the trail would be via an existing sidewalk located on the northwest side of Saratoga Avenue. Trail users would be required to follow the trail to the sidewalk adjacent to Saratoga Avenue. There is currently a bridge used by the Union Pacific Railroad that is elevated above Saratoga Avenue. The bridge does not meet design standards for use by pedestrian or bicyclists, and could pose a safety hazard if used by persons accessing the trail. The following mitigation measure would discourage the use of the railroad bridge by trail users, and would reduce hazards associated with this bridge to a less- than-significant level: Mitigation Measure TRAF-5: Signs “R5-6” (no bicycles graphic) and “R5-10c” (Pedestrians Prohibited), as depicted in the MUTCD and illustrated at right, shall be posted by the City on the northwest side of the railroad bridge to prohibit pedestrians and bicyclists from using the bridge. Additionally, landscape features and/or fencing shall be installed to discourage trail users from crossing the railroad bridge. Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court Residential Access Points. Access to the trail would also be pro- vided by existing pedestrian gates located off of Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court. These access points would require trail users to cross the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Trains through the area are infrequent (approximately three times per week); however, trains could still pose a hazard to trail users crossing the corridor from north to south or vice-versa. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure TRAF-6: Sign “R15-8,” as depicted in the MUTCD and illustrated at right, shall be installed at the Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court access points to warn pedestrians to look for trains before crossing the railroad tracks. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Emergency vehicle access through the project site would be unaffected by the proposed project. The pro- posed project would maintain all existing north/south roadway crossings of the railroad right-of-way. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the removal of parking from the project site. Based on a survey of trail users, a majority of the trail users access the project site via foot from resi- dential access points, walk a short distance and return at the same access point.52 The trail would be some- 52 LSA Associates, Inc., 2006. Memorandum from Adam Weinstein to Carmen Borg. User Survey on PG&E Right-of- Way in Saratoga. July 31. R15-8 R5-6 R5-10C 175 176 177 178 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 77 range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major peri- ods of California history or prehistory? Implementation of the proposed project could adversely affect protected plants, wildlife, and riparian areas. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-2c would ensure that impacts to these resources are reduced to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through CULT-4 would ensure that existing cultural resources within the project site are evaluated and protected, as appropriate. The proposed project would enhance bicycle access in Saratoga, provide com- munity recreational space, and would benefit regional air quality in the long-term. With mitigation, imple- mentation of the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cu- mulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Other planned and anticipated projects in Saratoga include small-scale residential developments, improve- ments to Kevin Moran Park, and the revitalization of Saratoga Village. As of March 2007, there are no plans for additional trail segments along the PG&E or Union Pacific Railroad rights-of-way. The foresee- able projects in Saratoga would be expected to result in minimal adverse environmental impacts, similar to the proposed project. These impacts could include incremental increases in stormwater runoff, minor disturbances to urban wildlife, and other effects typical of projects undertaken in already-developed areas. With the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending or planned projects. The proposed project would result in the development of enhanced bicycle access throughout Saratoga and would provide additional community park space. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Implementation of the proposed project would not expose construction workers and the public to soils that have been substantially contaminated by historic railroad and agricultural activities or other signifi- cant health risks. 179 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 78 D. REPORT PREPARERS LSA Associates, Inc., Prime Consultant: Project Management and Report Production; Project Description; Initial Study Preparation 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 David Clore, Principal-in-Charge Adam Weinstein, Project Manager Amy Fischer, Transportation/Air Quality/Noise Specialist Patty Linder, Graphics and Production Jennifer Morris, Word Processing LSA Associates, Inc.: Cultural Resources and Biological Resources 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 Christian Gerike, Principal Neal Kaptain Pulcheon, Cultural Resources Manager Steve Granholm, Principal Matt Ricketts, Biologist Baseline Environmental Consulting: Hydrology and Water Quality, and Hazardous Materials and Public Health and Safety 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608 Yane Nordhav, Principal Bruce Abelli-Amen, Hydrologist Julie Pettijohn, Environmental Health Scientist Ralph Russell, Environmental Associate E. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alta Transportation Consulting, 2001. Union Pacific Rail Feasibility Study. October 15. Anderson, C., Archaeological Site Survey Form for CA-SCL-67. On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California, 1973. Association of Bay Area Governments, 2006. Interactive ABAG (GIS) Maps Showing Dam Failure Inun- dation. Website: abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/damfail.html Association of Bay Area Governments, 2006. Wildland Urban Interface-Fire Threatened Communities (mapping of CDF 2003 Fire Hazards data). Website:.quake.abag.ca.gov. July. Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2006. Hazardous Materials Technical Study, De Anza Trail. July. 180 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 79 Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2006. Limited Soil Investigation, De Anza Trail Site. March. Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2007. Location Hydraulic Floodplain Study, De Anza Trail Site, Saratoga, California. March. Bay Air Quality Management District, 2006. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status. Website: www.baaqmd.gov. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. April (Amended December, 1999). Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2006. Annual Bay Area Air Pollution Summaries. Website: www.baaqmd.gov. California Department of Conservation, 20006. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website: www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm. July. California Department of Health Services (DHS), 2002. An Evaluation of the Possible Risks from Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations, and Appliances. June. Caltrans, 1981. Archaeological Survey Report for Orchard Removal at Selected Locations on 04-SCL-85 Post Miles 12.9, 13.2, 13.5/13.7 04-SCL-87 Post Miles 3.7 04402-911036 Cities of Saratoga and San Jose, Santa Clara County. (Caltrans District 4: Environmental Planning Branch, 1981). Et. al. Caltrans, 2006. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy1.html. July. Cartier, Robert, Cabrillo College Archaeological Site Survey Record for CA-SCL-221/H. (On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California, 1976). City of Saratoga, 2002 (updated 2004). Integrated Pest Management Plan. June 27. City of Saratoga, 2006. DeAnza Trail Preliminary Arborist Report. Prepared by Kate Bear, Community Development Department. August 16. Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., 2006. Geotechnical Investigation, Saratoga Bridges, Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek, Saratoga, California. November. County of Santa Clara, Airports Department, 2006. Airport Master Plans. Website: www. countyairports.org. July 5. Design Studios West, 2004. Memorandum from Teresa Whittemore to Bob Eck. October 5. Environmental Data Resources (EDR), 2006, Environmental Database Report – The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, Saratoga de Anza Trail, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070, Inquiry Number: 1699542.2s. June 19. 181 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 80 Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), 2006. Long Range Plan. Website: fuhsd.org. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1979). Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, 2006. GIS - Dam Inundation Maps. March 30. Harvacik, Iveta, 2007. Associate Engineer, City of Saratoga. Personal communication with Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger. March. Harvacik, Iveta, 2006. Associate Engineer, City of Saratoga. August 18. Hausman, Richard, 2006. Chief Business Official for Cupertino Union School District. Personal commu- nication with Baseline staff. July 7. Helley, E.J., K.R. La Joie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair, Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region- Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Plan- ning. Hirokawa, John, 2005. Letter to John Cherbone, Saratoga Public Works Director, from Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. May 11. Justice, John, 2006. Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist, Santa Clara Valley Fire Department. Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey, 2005. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District (LGSUHSD), 2006. Bond Information. Website: www.lgsuhsd.org. LSA Associates, 2004. Memorandum from David Clore, Principal, LSA Associates, Inc. to Sarah Dennis, Associate, Freedman, Tung and Bottomley: Electromagnetic Fields, Power Lines and Land Use Planning. August 24. LSA Associates, Inc., 2007. Biological Assessment, Saratoga De Anza Trail, Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. January. LSA Associates, Inc., 2006. Delineation of Waters of the United States, Saratoga De Anza Trail Corridor, Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. July 21. LSA Associates, Inc., 2006. Draft Memorandum. User Survey on PG&E Right-of-Way in Saratoga. July 31. Mineta San Jose International Airport, 2006. Airport Fast Facts. Website: www.sjc.org. July 5. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 1999. Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. May. 182 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 81 Rosenthal, Jeffrey, and Jack Meyer, Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Southern Santa Clara Valley and Surrounding Region. Davis Publication Number 14. (Davis: Center for Archaeological Research, 2004), 93. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 1992, Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports, amended 2005. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, 2006. Memorandum: Information on Co-permittee HMP Applicability Maps. April 20. Saratoga Union School District (SUSD), 2006. About Our District. Website: www.susd.k12.ca.us. Savage, Donald, Late Cenozoic Vertebrates of the San Francisco Bay Region. (Berkeley: University of California Bulletin of the Department of Geological Sciences 28 (10): 215-314, 1951. Et. al. Schaaf and Wheeler Civil Engineers, 2006. Technical Memorandum, 100-Year Water Surface Elevation of Saratoga Creek at Proposed Bridge Crossing. November. Schaaf and Wheeler Civil Engineers, 2006. Technical Memorandum, 100-Year Water Surface Elevation of Saratoga Creek at Proposed Bridge Crossing. December. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Santa Clara County, California. Soil Conservation Service, Volume 193. Morgan Hill: United States Department of Agriculture, 1968. State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2006. Important Farmland Map. Union Pacific Railroad, 2007. D. Rhodes, Manager of Terminal Operations. January. US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1968, Soils of Santa Clara County. Harvancik, Iveta, Associate Engineer, City of Saratoga., 2006. De Anza Trail, Memorandum: Proposed Trail Bridges. 183 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL APRIL 2007 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION P:\SMI0601\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\InitialStudy-PublicReview.doc 82 184 Document1 1 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (EIR) for the proposed Saratoga De Anza Trail (project) in the City of Saratoga.The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.The MMRP specifies the City department responsible for implementing and monitoring each measure. Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project.Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number.For example,AIR2 is the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND. The first column of Table 1 identifies the mitigation measure.The second column, entitled “Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation,”names the party responsible for carrying out the required action.The third column,“Implementation Procedure,”describes the steps involved in implementing the mitigation measure.The fourth column,“Implementation Timing,”identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated.The fifth column,“Party Responsible for Monitoring,”names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented.“Action by Monitor” outlines the steps for monitoring the action identified in the mitigation measure.The sixth column, entitled “Monitoring Timing,”states the time the monitor must ensure that the mitigation measure has been implemented.The last column will be used by the City to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been monitored. 185 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Document1 2 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date AESTHETICS AES1: The City shall implement the following measures: 1.Tree protective fencing shall be installed and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on the project site. The fencing shall comprise 6foot high chainlink fencing mounted on 8foot tall, 2inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing shall remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 2.A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the contractor following installation of protective fencing and prior to start of work to review tree protection measures. 3.Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities shall be conducted outside the designated fenced area, including the time after fencing is removed. Construction activities include, but are not limited to, demolition, grading, Public Works Department 1.Install protective fencing around trees within or adjacent to the project site. 2. Hold a pre construction meeting with the contractor to review tree protection measures. 3. Conduct all construction activities outside the fencing around trees, unless otherwise approved. 4. Perform grading or trenching beneath tree canopies manually. 5. Prune trees under the supervision of a certified arborist, and according to International Society of Arboriculture standards. 6. Dispose of harmful products in accordance with recognized hazardous materials disposal protocol and do not store fuel or maintain equipment Prior to and during project construction Public Works Department Verify that the construction contractor and/or City employees involved in project construction are following tree protection requirements Prior to and during project construction Name: Date: 186 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 3 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 4.Any approved grading or trenching beneath tree canopies shall be performed manually using shovels. 5.Any pruning of trees shall be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 6.The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil, and gasoline) shall be prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on the site where drainage occurs beneath tree canopies. In addition, fuel shall not be stored and refueling or maintenance of equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of a tree trunk. 7.Herbicides and pesticides shall not be applied beneath tree canopies as part of the proposed project. Where used on the site, herbicides shall be labeled for safe use near trees. 8.Tree removal shall be avoided if feasible. If trees are removed (in or adjacent to the project site), within 20 feet of a tree trunk. 7. Do not apply herbicides and pesticides beneath tree canopies and, elsewhere in the site, use herbicides that are safe for use near trees. 8. Avoid tree removal. If trees are removed, replace them. 187 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 4 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date they shall be replaced. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES There are no significant Agricultural Resources impacts. AIR QUALITY AIR1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures at the project site during the construction and pre construction phases of the project: 1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. 3. Apply water three times daily or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 4. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 5. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 6. Hydroseed or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously disturbed areas inactive for ten Construction Contractor Implement all the dust control measures listed in Mitigation Measure AIR1 During project construction Public Works Department Visit project site and verify that dust control measures are being implemented During project construction Name: Date: 188 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 5 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date days or more). 7. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) 8. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 9. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 10.Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11.Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 12.Minimize idling time (to 5 minutes or less). 13.Maintain properlytuned equipment. AIR2: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR1. Refer to Mitigation Measure AIR1 AIR3: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR1. Refer to Mitigation Measure AIR1 189 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 6 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO1: If feasible, all vegetation removal activities shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (i.e., September through February) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work must be scheduled during the breeding season (March through August), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of the work area to determine if any birds are nesting in or in the vicinity of vegetation to be removed. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March to May (since there is higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June–August. If active nests are found in the work area, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and shall be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. Public Works Department Remove vegetation from September through February, if feasible. If vegetation is removed outside this period, retain a qualified ornithologist to conduct a pre construction survey of the work area, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO1. Establish buffers around identified nests, in consultation with CDFG. Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that vegetation removal takes place during the non breeding season or review the pre construction ornithologist survey and verify that appropriate buffers have been established around nests Prior to project construction Name: Date: 190 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 7 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date BIO2a: The City shall apply for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The SAA shall include measures to protect fish and wildlife resources, including Pacific pond turtle and California redlegged frog, during construction. Measures included in the SAA to protect Pacific pond turtle and California redlegged frog shall include the following: · Conduct preconstruction surveys of the proposed work area one to two weeks prior to the start of construction to ensure that no individuals are present. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist and shall consist of one daytime and one night survey. · Conduct a final preconstruction survey within 48 hours prior to the start of construction to confirm that no individuals are present. · Require that construction of the Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek bridges be completed between April 1 and November 1. · Locate equipment maintenance, refueling, and staging areas at least 100 feet from creek banks. Public Works Department Apply for a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG and comply with the Pacific pond turtle and California redlegged frog measures included in the agreement Prior to construction of the two bridges Public Works Department Verify that a Streambed Alteration Agreement has been granted and that the construction contractor and City staff have complied with the turtle and frog protection measures Prior to construction of the two bridges Name: Date: 191 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 8 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date Conduct refueling behind a contaminant barrier that prevents spilled or leaked fuel from entering the creek. All equipment servicing shall be conducted within designated areas with appropriate setbacks from the top of the bank. All motorized equipment used during construction shall be checked for oil, fuel, and coolant leaks prior to initiating work. · Implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the project, to ensure that sediment and synthetic contaminants from construction sites do not enter creek channels. BIO2b: The amount of riparian vegetation trimmed, removed, or disturbed shall be minimized. Native trees (more than 6 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh)) that are removed in riparian areas shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio on site (to the extent feasible) or within the same watershed (i.e., Rodeo Creek or Saratoga Creek) using local, native riparian trees. Any revegetation efforts shall be completed prior to the rainy season. The plantings shall be maintained until successfully established. Public Works Department Minimize the amount of trimmed, removed, or disturbed riparian vegetation. Replace trees and other riparian vegetation in accordance with the provisions of Mitigation Measure BIO2b. Prior to project construction Public Works Department Review detailed project plans and verify that riparian tree removal has been minimized. Verify that any removed trees would be replaced and that revegetation would occur prior to the onset of the rainy season. Prior to project construction Name: Date: 192 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 9 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date BIO2c: To avoid the introduction of invasive species into the project site during project construction, contract specification shall include (at a minimum) the following measures: · All earthmoving equipment to be used during project construction shall be thoroughly cleaned before arriving on the project site. · All seeding equipment (i.e., hydroseed trucks), if used on the site, shall be thoroughly rinsed at least three times prior to arriving at the project site and beginning seeding work. · To avoid spreading any non native invasive species already existing onsite, to offsite areas, all equipment shall be thoroughly cleaned before leaving the site. Construction Contractor Include the anti invasive species measures included in Mitigation Measure BIO2c in the construction plans Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that construction plans include the required measures outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO2c and visit the site to confirm that measures are being implemented Prior to and during construction period Name: Date: BIO3: Implement Mitigation Measure AES1. Refer to Mitigation Measure AES1 CULTURAL RESOURCES CULT1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project construction activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the finds and make recommendations. If such Construction Contractor and Public Works Department If potential archaeological materials are uncovered during the construction period, no work shall occur within 25 feet of the discovery. The Public Works Department shall retain a qualified During project construction Public Works Department Review the archaeology report and verify that recommendations have been followed During project construction Name: Date: 193 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 10 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date deposits cannot be avoided, they shall be evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources eligibility. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they shall be avoided by project construction activities, or such effects shall be mitigated to a less thansignificant level. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting methods and results of the assessment, and shall provide recommendations for the treatment of archaeological materials discovered. The report shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest Information Center. archaeologist to assess the finds and make recommendations. The Public Works Department shall follow these recommendations. CULT2: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT1. Refer to Mitigation Measure CULT1 194 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 11 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date CULT3: If paleontological resources are discovered during project construction activities, all work within 25 feet of the disc overy shall be redirected until a paleontological monitor has assessed the situation and made recommendations regarding their treatment. It is recommended that adverse effects to paleontological resources be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided, or such effects shall be mitigated. Mitigation shall consist of data recovery, report preparation, fossil curation, and public outreach. The report documenting the methods and results of monitoring should be submitted both to the City of Saratoga and to the paleontological repository to which the fossils would be offered for curation, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology, upon project completion. Construction Contractor and Public Works Department If potential paleontological materials are uncovered during the construction period, no work shall occur within 25 feet of the discovery. The Public Works Department shall retain a qualified paleontologist to assess the finds and make recommendations. The Public Works Department shall follow these recommendations. During project construction Public Works Department Review the paleontology report and verify that recommendations have been followed During project construction Name: Date: CULT4: If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified Construction Contractor and Public Works Department If human remains are found during the construction period, no work shall occur within During project construction Public Works Department Review the archaeology report and verify that the recommendations of During project construction Name: Date: 195 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 12 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the assess ment, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga and the Northwest Information Center. 25 feet of the discovery. The Public Works Department shall contact the County Coroner and an archaeologist. The City shall follow the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendant and archaeologist, if the remains are of Native American origin. the Most Likely Descendant and archaeologist are followed GEOLOGY AND SOILS There are no significant Geology and Soils impacts. HAZARDS There are no significant Hazards impacts. 196 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 13 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYD1: The trail shall be constructed so that runoff from the trail is not concentrated, but diffused into buffer area adjoining the trail. To the maximum extent practicable, runoff from the trail shall not be directed into the creeks without prior treatment (e.g. adequate residence time in a grassy swale or detention area). Swales and buffer areas adequate to treat runoff from the trail shall be clearly depicted in the final project design plans. Public Works Department Incorporate passive storm water treatment measures into the detailed trail design plans Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that passive storm water management features have been incorporated into the detailed trail design plans, and that these features are adequate to treat runoff from the trail Prior to project construction Name: Date: LAND USE AND PLANNING There are no significant Land Use and Planning impacts. MINERAL RESOURCES There are no significant Mineral Resources impacts. NOISE NOISE1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures: · In accordance with Article 730 060(a) of the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, construction activities (including earthmoving and grading) within the project site shall be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not occur on Sundays or weekday holidays. Construction Contractor Implement the noise reducing measures outlined in Mitigation Measure NOISE1 During project construction Public Works Department Visit construction site to verify that noise reducing measures are being implemented During project construction Name: Date: 197 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 14 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date · During construction, all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. · Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. · All stationary noisegenerating equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located as far as practical from residences in the vicinity of the project site. Such equipment shall be acoustically shielded using standard plywood barriers, noise control blankets, or other appropriate equipment. · Whenever feasible, quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall be utilized. 198 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 15 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date NOISE2: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE1. Refer to Mitigation Measure NOISE1 NOISE3: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE1. Refer to Mitigation Measure NOISE1 POPULATION AND HOUSING There are no significant Population and Housing impacts. PUBLIC SERVICES There are no significant Public Services impacts. RECREATION There are no significant Recreation impacts. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC TRAF1: The City shall add pedestrian striping and pedestrian signal head indicators for the east west movement at the intersection of SaratogaSunnyvale Road and Sea Gull Way. To direct pedestri ans and bicyclists to use the designated crossing and avoid crossing elsewhere, the City shall also install at the end of the western terminus of the trail sign “R92” (“Use crosswalk” with arrow) or “R93b” (“Cross Only At Cross Walks”), as depicted in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and illustrated at right. Public Works Department Include the following features in the detailed plans for the project: 1) pedestrian striping and pedestrian signal head indicators at the intersection of SaratogaSunnyvale Road and Sea Gull Way and 2) trail sign R92 or R93b at the end of the western terminus of the trail Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that the features listed in Mitigation Measure TRAF1 are included in the detailed project plans Prior to project construction Name: Date: TRAF2: The City shall install signage stating “Trail Dead Ends 0.6mile” at the entrance to the trail near SaratogaSunnyvale Road. Public Works Department Include the following feature in the detailed plans for the project: a sign stating “Trail Dead Ends 0.6mile” at the entrance to the trail near Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that the sign described in Mitigation Measure TRAF2 is included in the detailed project plans Prior to project construction Name: Date: TRAF3: The City shall install Public Works Include the following Prior to project Public Works Verify that the sign Prior to project Name: 199 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 16 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date signage stating “Trail Dead Ends 0.3mile” west of Glen Brae Drive. Department feature in the detailed plans for the project: a sign stating “Trail Dead Ends 0.3mile”west of Glen Brae Drive construction Department described in Mitigation Measure TRAF3 is included in the detailed project plans construction Date: TRAF4:The City shall install a standard crosswalk consisting of two parallel white solid lines 12 inches wide spaced 8 feet apart at the Glen Brae crossing. A crosswalk warning sign shall also be installed to alert motorists of the pedestrian crossing. The sign “W112,” as depicted in MUTCD and illustrated at right, shall be used to alert motorists about the crossing and shall be installed at a location that would provide adequate advance warning for drivers. Public Works Department Include the following features in the detailed plans for the project: 1) a standard crosswalk consisting of two parallel white solid lines 12 inches wide spaced 8 feet apart at the Glen Brae Crossing and 2) crosswalk warning sign W112 at the Glen Brae crossing Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that the features described in Mitigation Measure TRAF4 are included in the detailed project plans Prior to project construction Name: Date: TRAF5: Signs “R56” (no bicycles graphic) and “R510c” (Pedestrians Prohibited), as depicted in the MUTCD and illustrated at right, shall be posted by the City on the northwest side of the railroad bridge to prohibit pedestrians and bicyclists from using the bridge. Additionally, landscape features and/or fencing shall be installed to discourage trail users from crossing the railroad bridge. Public Works Department Include the following features in the detailed plans for the project: 1) signs R56 and R510c at the northwest side of the railroad bridge and 2) landscape features and fencing adjacent to the bridge (to discourage/prevent pedestrian use) Prior to project construction Public Works Department Verify that the features described in Mitigation Measure TRAF5 are included in the detailed project plans Prior to project construction Name: Date: TRAF6: Sign “R158,” as depicted in the MUTCD and Note: This mitigation measure is no longer applicable because the Fredericksburg Drive/Guava Court crossing has been closed. 200 L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S A R A T O G A D E A N Z A I N I T I A L S T U D Y /M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M Table 1 Continued Document1 17 Mitigation Measure Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Procedure Implementation Timing Party Responsible for Monitoring Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Name/ Date illustrated at right, shall be installed at the Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court access points to warn pedestrians to look for trains before crossing the railroad tracks. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS There are no significant Utilities and Service Systems impacts. 201 202 Letter A 1 203 Letter A cont. 204 Letter A: Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (May 16, 2007) A-1: This comment indicates that the City of Saratoga has complied with the environmental review requirements of the State Clearinghouse, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No additional response is required. 4 205 Letter B 1 2 3 206 Letter B cont. 4 5 207 Letter B: Kevin Boles, Environmental Specialist, Rail Crossings Engineering Section, Consumer Protection and Safety Division, Public Utilities Commission (May 15, 2007) B-1: Safety issues associated with construction and use of the proposed trail are discussed throughout the Draft IS/MND, but particularly on pages 70 to 73. The proposed project would not include any physical changes to existing at-grade rail crossings or new crossings over railroad tracks. As indicated on page 70 of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed trail “would be located a minimum of approximately 50 feet from the center line of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks that are adjacent to the project site.” In addition, as noted on page 25 of the Draft IS/MND, the number of trail users is not expected to substantially increase after implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not increase vehicle or pedestrian traffic such that an existing at-grade rail crossing would require improvements. In regard to pedestrian circulation patterns, the proposed trail (which would be parallel to the existing railroad tracks) would not encourage pedestrians or cyclists to cross the railroad tracks. The existing Fredericksburg Drive/Guava Court pedestrian gates were identified as locations where pedestrians currently cross the railroad tracks. However, the City closed this pedestrian crossing on August 23, 2007, per a directive from the California Public Utilities Commission. Alta Planning + Design, a firm that specializes in trail design, conducted a review of the safety conditions of the proposed trail.1 In this review, Alta noted that: “During our study of this corridor we did not note a pattern of regular trespassing at any one location. There are no “destinations” across the tracks for pedestrians and bicyclists using the trail, therefore there is no incentive or reason for trail users to cross the tracks.” Alta also concluded: “Our research indicates that a well-designed RWT [rail-with-trail] will actually reduce the number of people trespassing on the tracks – despite a modest increase in use of the trail. People will also be located further away from the railroad tracks than where many people currently walk or bicycle. People want to walk, bike, or run on an even surface, not a railroad track. The De Anza Trail will provide that opportunity. . . Based on research of over 100 RWTs in the U.S. and internationally, including input from railroad companies, the California Public Utilities Commission, Federal Railroad Authority, and other parties in “Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions,” we do not expect the De Anza Trail to increase trespassing or safety incidents on the trail or by trail users if the facility is designed and operated to current standards and best practices. . . ” The trail would be designed and operated in accordance with these provisions (which are outlined in the Trail Management Plan 2 prepared for the project). Therefore, trespassing on the railroad right-of-way is not expected to be a significant safety issue. 1 Alta Planning + Design, August 30, 2007. Memorandum to Carmen Borg, Urban Planner, Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger. Re: Draft Review of Safety Conditions for the City of Saratoga De Anza Trail. 2 Alta Planning + Design, 2007. Trail Management Plan, Saratoga De Anza Trail Project. Prepared for City of Saratoga. (The Trail Management Plan incorporates and implements the project description and mitigation measures in the Initial Study.) 7 208 B-2: The City has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by preparing the appropriate level of environmental analysis. As discussed on pages 70 to 71 of the Draft IS/MND, the lack of a barrier (such as a fence or grade separation) between the railroad tracks and the proposed trail would not be expected to pose a significant safety hazard to trail users for the following three reasons: 1) north/south crossings of the railroad tracks would be infrequent due to the limited number of trail access points on either side of the tracks; 2) trains run on the tracks only three times a week and are relatively slow moving; and 3) the tracks would be separated from the trail by at least 50 feet of vacant space. In addition, development of a formalized trail within the existing trail corridor would encourage users to stay within the trail corridor and away from the railroad tracks. This conclusion was confirmed by Alta Planning + Design in its August 30, 2007 review of the proposed trail’s safety conditions (see response B-1 for more detail). The potential for trail users to diverge from the path, cross the rail bridge over Saratoga Avenue, and come into conflict with passing trains is likewise expected to be minimal (because the trail continues south along Saratoga Avenue, away from the bridge). However, this potential hazard would be further reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-5, which would require the placement of a “No Bicycles” and a “Pedestrians Prohibited” sign at the northwest side of the railroad bridge. Alta’s August 30, 2007 review of expected safety conditions on the trail also found that the proposed trail is not expected to increase safety risks (see response B-1 for more detail). In this review, Alta stated that: “The proposed De Anza Trail meets or exceeds all of the criteria for RWTs [rails-with-trails] identified in the FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] ‘Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions’ report, therefore we expect this trail to function in a safe manner similar to the other 100 plus RWTs in the United States.” The key reasons for Alta’s conclusion that the trail would be safe are summarized below: • The trail is expected to experience moderate to low usage. • There is no incentive (such as adjacent trail facilities) for people to trespass east along the railroad corridor; also, existing roadway intersections adjacent to the western terminus of the trail would allow users to cross Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road safely. • A well-designed rail trail reduces the number of people trespassing on railroad tracks because trail users desire a smooth surface on which to bike, walk, and run. • The proposed trail would meet all of the design criteria for safe trails outlined in the FHWA report cited above (in terms of adequate setback, low speed/volume of trains, and location off railroad property). • The proposed trail would meet all existing State and local laws, regulations, and requirements, and would incorporate best safety practices from around the United States. 8 209 B-3: The Cox Avenue crossing is not part of the project site. Although implementation of the proposed project could marginally increase pedestrian/bicyclist crossings of Cox Avenue (as trail users utilize Cox Avenue to access the trail), these additional crossings would not be expected to substantially increase the risk of collision. As indicated on page 72 of the Draft IS/MND, no accidents at the intersection of the trail corridor and Cox Avenue involving conflicts between pedestrians/bicyclists have occurred in the past 5 years. The proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the number of trail users. Therefore, the risk associated with a small amount of trail users utilizing the crossing would be less than significant. No mitigation is required to reduce this less-than-significant impact. B-4: The Fredericksburg Drive/Guava Court crossing was closed by the City on August 23, 2007, per a directive from the California Public Utilities Commission. B-5: The City would work with the Public Utilities Commission, and other involved agencies, to ensure the continued safety of trail users in and around the project site. 9 210 Letter C 1 2 3 211 Letter C cont. 3 cont. 4 5 6 212 Letter C cont. 7 8 9 10 11 213 Letter C cont. 12 214 Letter C: Wendy Allison, P.E., Assistant Civil Engineer, Community Projects Review Unit, Santa Clara Valley Water District (May 21, 2007) C-1: Page 23 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows. Underlining indicates added text. 5. Project Approvals/Entitlements The City would undertake approvals of the following items as part of the proposed project: • Trail Concept Alignment • Easement and Indemnification Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) The City may need to obtain permits and/or approval from the following agencies: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) • Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Potential approvals by other agencies and organizations are listed below: Pacific Gas and Electric • Grant of Easement California Public Utilities Commission • Approval of PG&E’s grant of the easement for the proposed trail pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 851 C-2: As part of the project, the City would coordinate with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and other involved agencies to ensure that the trail and associated bridges do not interfere with the operation or maintenance of existing utility lines in the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to existing utility infrastructure. C-3: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, is noted. If the project is approved, detailed project plans will be prepared, and will indicate property ownership patterns in the project site, as appropriate. The City would coordinate, as appropriate, with SCVWD regarding the Joint Use Agreement referenced by the commenter. C-4: The hydrology analysis in the Draft IS/MND was based on conceptual bridge diagrams and the bridge design recommendations made in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Cotton Shires and Associates in 2006. These recommendations would be incorporated into the bridge designs as part of the project. The elevations of the bridge bottoms (including soffits) would be determined at the time that final bridge engineering drawings are produced. 14 215 As described on pages 20 and 21 of the Draft IS/MND, the bridges over Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek would be prefabricated Pratt Truss Bridges, and bridge piers would be located at least 6 feet from the top of the creek banks. Although Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were used in the analysis, they were not the basis for the determination of the 100-year flood elevations. Schaaf and Wheeler conducted an independent hydraulic analysis (using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1 model), which showed that the 100-year flood elevations were within the creek channels of both Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek (Schaaf and Wheeler Civil Engineers, 2006. Technical Memorandum, 100-Year Water Surface Elevation of Saratoga Creek and Rodeo Creek at Proposed Bridge Crossing(s). November/December.) Based on the Pratt Truss prefabricated design and the fact that bridge piers would be at least 6 feet from the top of the creek banks, Schaaf and Wheeler concluded that both bridges would be “above the water surface elevation during the 100-year storm.” Based on the conceptual bridge diagrams, it appears that the bridges would satisfy the freeboard requirement outlined in Design Guide 8 – Establishing Freeboard for Bridge Crossings and Flood Protection Projects. The requested reports were sent to the commenter on September 21, 2007. C-5: Refer to response B-2 regarding users continuing past the eastern terminus of the trail, on the Saratoga Avenue rail overcrossing. Use of the rail corridor by pedestrians, including portions of the rail corridor east and west of the project site termini, occurs occasionally under existing conditions. Although development of the trail would bring some additional users to the project site, the number of additional users is not expected to be substantial. A portion of these users could contemplate crossing between the eastern and western portions of the trail, or continuing east or west from the trail termini. Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, TRAF-2, TRAF-3, and TRAF-5 would discourage trail users from using portions of the corridor that do not contain completed trail segments, and would reduce risks associated with trail user/train conflict to a less-than-significant level. Additional mitigation would not be necessary. Refer to response B-3 regarding hazards associated with trails users crossing Cox Avenue. C-6: As part of the project, the City would coordinate with the SCVWD to ensure that proposed trail facilities and signage would not interfere with SCVWD operations (and that SCVWD operations would not disrupt the trail surface). As indicated on page 20 of the Draft IS/MND, trail width would be approximately 12 feet (although width would narrow to 5 feet around utility towers). Bridge width would range from 8 to 12 feet. Therefore, trail width would not increase at creek crossings and trailheads. C-7: The City will consider incorporating elements of the swale design guidelines provided by the commenter into the project. However, Mitigation Measure HYD-1, in its current form, is adequate to reduce the adverse effects of storm water generated by the proposed trail to a less-than-significant level. C-8: The project’s impacts on riparian habitat and water temperature would be minor in the context of existing and foreseeable projects that would result in the construction of new creek crossings over Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek. As noted on page 38 of the Draft IS/MND, “the project would not result in any direct impacts to the streambed or creek banks.” According to the Preliminary Arborist Report prepared for the project, the only riparian 15 216 vegetation that would be removed as part of the project would be one white alder and one Mexican fan palm next to Saratoga Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-2b would require the trimming, removal, and disturbance of riparian vegetation to be minimized, and would require all removed native vegetation to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Replacement vegetation would be planted with permission of the property owner. In addition, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), required as part of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, would minimize soil erosion into the creeks. Therefore, the project (including the construction of bridges) would result in only minor changes to riparian vegetation around Rodeo Creek and Saratoga Creek. The removal of a few trees (with replacement of individuals in the same watershed) would not be expected to alter the temperature of the two creeks. Shadow cast by the two bridges could slightly lower the temperature of the creek within the immediate vicinity of the bridges; however, this slight temperature reduction would be insignificant in terms of its effects on plant and animal species. C-9: These comments, which do not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, are noted. The City would use the guidelines referenced by the commenter in the design of temporary storm water control measures, and for screening purposes, as appropriate. As indicated on page 50 of the Draft IS/MND, landscape maintenance on the site would be conducted in accordance with the City’s Integrated Pest Management Plan, which prohibits the use of certain toxic chemicals and encourages the use of vegetation and pest control techniques that minimize disruption of natural systems. C-10: Cooper’s hawk is a raptor species that breeds from March through August, according to the California Department of Fish and Game (California Department of Fish and Game, 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database, Version 8.1. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Sacramento.) C-11: The level of detail provided in the Draft IS/MND about existing biological conditions in and around the site is adequate to allow decision makers and the public to understand the impacts of the proposed project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 (which specifically relates to EIRs, but also pertains to IS/MNDs). A Natural Environmental Study (NES) was prepared for the proposed project in January 2007, and is available for review at the Saratoga Public Works Department (LSA Associates, Inc., 2007. Natural Environmental Study, Saratoga De Anza Trail, Santa Clara County, California. January.). The NES contains background information about special-status animal species that occur in the vicinity of the project site. Refer to Table 1 of the NES for a list of special-status species that could occur in the vicinity of the project site, based on a review of natural resources databases and local habitat conditions. Dusky woodrat would not be likely to occur near the site due to the absence of the species’ preferred habitat: dense oak-bay woodland. Pallid bat could occur near the site, but, due to the absence of appropriate roost sites, would not be expected to occur within the trail corridor. Therefore, bats are not explicitly discussed in the Draft IS/MND. C-12: This comment, which concludes the letter, is noted. 16 217 Letter D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 218 Letter D cont. 8 219 Letter D: William C. Elhoff (May 4, 2007) D-1: Refer to response C-2. D-2: City staff (or contractors) will patrol the trail on an as-needed basis, reporting issues to the City’s Code Enforcement Officer and the County Sheriff’s Office as they are encountered. In addition, according to a May 11, 2005 letter from John Hirokawa of the Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Office to John Cherbone, Saratoga Public Works Director, regular patrols of the project site could be accommodated within the City’s existing contract for police services, and it is anticipated that patrols of the proposed project could occur with existing Sherriff’s Office staff. The letter from John Hirokawa also notes: “The community, City Council, and City staff can request the Sherriff’s Office to concentrate routine patrol efforts at a designated location, such as City parks, specific neighborhoods, specific residential streets, business districts, etc., at no additional cost to the City of Saratoga.” Sherriff patrols would occur on an as-needed basis. D-3: The proposed project, which would formalize an existing trail, would not increase motorcycle access within the project site. In accordance with Municipal Code section 11-05.040, signage would be posted at the trail termini that would prohibit the use of motorcycles and other motorized vehicles. The use of motorized vehicles in the site would also be minimized through patrols of the project site and monitoring by residents and trail users. The specific designs for trail signage have not yet been finalized. However, signage would be similar to that used on other pedestrian/bike trails in the area, and would not result in adverse impacts to visual resources (such as the obstruction of scenic views or the deterioration of visual character). D-4: The project site is not located in a high wildfire risk zone, and much of the site consists of bare earth with little vegetation. Implementation of the proposed project is expected to marginally increase use of the trail corridor. A portion of these new users could be smokers. However, the increased risk that one of these smokers could start a wildfire in the project site would not be considered significant. D-5: Maintenance of the project site by the Saratoga Public Works Department would occur on an as-needed basis. D-6: See response C-4. No portion of the proposed bridges would be located within the 100-year floodplain. The project would not require changes in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Saratoga. D-7: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND, is noted. D-8: Other planned or proposed trail projects, including the one referenced by the commenter, would be subject to independent environmental review. 19 220 Letter E 1 221 Letter E: Lois McPherson (May 13, 2007) E-1: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project, is noted. 21 222 223 Letter F: Bill Witmer (May 22, 2007) F-1: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project, is noted. F-2: Refer to page 22 of the Draft IS/MND: “The number of trail users is not expected to increase substantially as a result of project implementation. The project would formalize an existing, informally-used trail; the proposed facility is not anticipated to draw large numbers of new users because it is relatively short (a total of 1.3 miles), does not provide access to significant recreational areas (e.g., the shoreline of San Francisco Bay), and does not contain viewsheds that typically draw large crowds (e.g., unobstructed mountain or city skyline views).” F-3: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project, is noted. F-4: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project, is noted. 23 224 Letter G 1 2 225 Letter G cont. 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 226 227 Letter G: Jim Stallman (April 17, 2007) (Note: Jim Stallman submitted two e-mails to the City on the Draft IS/MND: one on April 17, 2007 at 3:05 a.m. and one on April 17 at 5:50 p.m. The later e-mail (from 5:50 p.m.) raises the same issues as the earlier e-mail, but provides more detailed comments. Therefore, formal responses are made only to the comments in the 5:50 p.m. e-mail. However, the earlier e-mail is provided in this Response to Comments document for reference.) G-1: This comment, which states that the findings in the Draft IS/MND are accurate, is noted. G-2: This comment introduces possible omissions from the Draft IS/MND that are discussed in the subsequent comments. G-3: The City was unable to identify Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E’s) community land use policy cited by the commenter. However, PG&E has expressed support for development of the trail in an April 26, 2007 letter from Kha K. Chau (PG&E Land Agent) to the City of Saratoga, in which PG&E notes that it “does hereby consent to the proposed development within the right of way.” G-4: The Rinconada Service Line and Rinconada Force Main are pipelines that transfer untreated water to the Rinconada Treatment Plant in Los Gatos. Both water conveyance lines are located in Los Gatos, and are not in proximity to the proposed trail.3 G-5: As noted on page 8 of the Draft IS/MND, although most of the site has been heavily disturbed, clumps of native vegetation exist. As noted on page 22, existing vegetation on the project site, especially native plants, would be protected where possible. Native vegetation would also be protected through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2c, which includes measures to reduce the spread of invasive plant species. The suggestion that native grasses and wildflowers be planted along the proposed trail will be considered by the City as part of the detailed project design, if the project is approved. G-6: This comment, which suggests that an existing rest facility could be used as a trail amenity, will be considered by the City as part of the detailed project design, if the project is approved. G-7: The San Jose Water District service/access driveway was not depicted on the conceptual site plans (Figures 3a through 3e) in the Draft IS/MND because the driveway is not located along a segment of right-of-way that would contain the trail. The nearest segment of the trail would be approximately 275 feet to the east of the driveway. G-8: The comment is correct. Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 on page 72 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows. This revision constitutes a minor, clarifying change to the mitigation measure. Underlining indicates added text; strikeout represents deleted text. Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: The City shall install signage stating “Trail Dead Ends 0.3- mile” east west of Glen Brae Drive. 3 Santa Clara Valley Water District, October, 2005. Notice of Preparation, Pipeline Maintenance Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. 27 228 G-9: The conceptual site plans (Figures 3a through 3e) in the Draft IS/MND do not show detailed depictions of the trail/roadway interface, including the proposed interface between the trail and Glen Brae Drive. Such design-level plans would be prepared by the City prior to trail construction, if the project is approved. 28 229 Letter H 1 2 230 Letter H cont. 3 4 5 231 Letter H: Donna Poppenhagen (April 20, 2007) H-1: The request/question was responded to by Kristin Borel at the City of Saratoga on April 23, 2007. H-2: The City Council approved Resolution No. 906 (“Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga Approving the Southern Pacific Transportation Company’s Easement Agreement for the Use of Their Right-of-Way for a Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Between Guava Court and Fredericksburg Drive”) and the resolution was signed by the Mayor on July 10, 1979. The resolution was not signed by Southern Pacific. H-3: Pedestrian access over the railroad tracks is prohibited from the existing parking lot south of the tracks to Congress Springs Park. No easement has been granted in this location. Signs adjacent to the tracks direct pedestrians to cross the tracks via the sidewalk along Glen Brae Drive. H-4: Refer to response C-5. 31 232 707 C Street San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 482-8660 (415) 482-8603 www.altaplanning.com September 26, 2007 Carmen Borg, Urban Planner Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 RE: Review of Safety Conditions for the City of Saratoga De Anza Trail Dear Ms. Borg: Alta Planning + Design is pleased to submit this review of the safety conditions on the planned De Anza Trail in the City of Saratoga. Specifically, we have prepared a response to the concerns identified by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in their letter dated May 15, 2007. Background Alta Planning + Design is considered one of the nation’s leading experts in the field of rails-with-trails, rail trails, greenways, and related facilities. Aside from completing over 500 trail and greenway studies nationwide, Alta has helped lead the national research on rails-with-trails (RWT) through the completion of the Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions publication for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (August 2002, FTA-MA-26-0052-04-1). That report states: “The research in this report has shown that well-designed RWTs meet the operational needs of railroads, often providing benefits in the form of reduced trespassing and dumping (p. VII). Based on the lessons learned in this study, it is clear that well-designed RWTs can bring numerous benefits to communities and railroads alike. (p. XI).” 1 233 In addition, Alta has worked on over 20 rail-with-trail projects throughout California, including the Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study (Alta Transportation Consulting, August 2001) that includes the De Anza Trail segment. CPUC Letter CPUC Letter of May 15, 2007 The CPUC provides design and operating standards for railroad tracks and related facilities within the railroad right-of-way, and issues approvals and permits for all existing and proposed public and private railroad crossings in California. The CPUC jurisdiction does not cover existing or proposed roadways, parks, trails, or other facilities (such as the De Anza Trail) located adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. As we understand it, the De Anza project does not include any new or modified crossings of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. An unofficial crossing at Fredericksburg Drive, was recently closed by the City of Saratoga. The CPUC suggests that further environmental review is required due to several factors, addressed below. Fencing The CPUC mentions concerns about safety and the lack of fencing being proposed along the trail. Generally there is no requirement for adjacent landowners to provide fencing on a railroad right-of-way, and in fact, much of the railroad right-of-way in California and the United States is not fenced. Railroads often directly parallel roadways with sidewalks, in which no fencing is provided by either party. Even on the high speed, high volume Caltrain corridor, the right-of-way is often not fenced. The Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions report provides this guidance on fencing and rails-with-trails: Over 70 percent of existing rail-with-trails (RWTs) utilize fencing and other barriers such as vegetation for separation from adjacent active railroads and other properties (see Figures 5.14 and 5.15). Barriers include fencing (34 percent), vegetation (21 percent), vertical grade (16 percent), and drainage ditch (12 percent). The fencing style varies considerably, from chain link to wire, wrought iron, vinyl, steel picket, and wooden rail Fencing height ranges from 0.8 m (3 ft) to 1.8 m (6 ft), although typical height is 0.8 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft). 2 234 There are about 12 existing rail-with-trail projects in California. Some facilities, including the Davis-Sacramento Bikeway, are located directly adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Main Line (see photo below). No security fencing is provided between the bikeway and the active tracks, which are approximately 40 feet from the bikeway. Other RWT projects, such as the San Luis Obispo Rail Trail or San Fernando Rail Trail, do provide a barrier between the trail and tracks. These facilities are located close to heavily-used mainlines. For example, the San Fernando RWT is located about 20 feet from the UPRR mainline, and utilizes a wrought-iron fence partially due to its proximity to a school. Davis-Sacramento Bicycle Path, about 2 miles east of Davis 3 235 While it is expected that the De Anza Trail will result in a modest increase in additional people walking or bicycling on the new pathway, the trail is expected to have moderate to low usage and to serve local residents from the immediate neighborhoods due to its shorter length. Our research indicates that a well-designed RWT will actually reduce the number of people trespassing on the tracks—despite a modest increase in use of the trail. People will also be located further away from the railroad tracks than where many people currently walk or bicycle. People want to walk, bike, or run on an even surface, not a railroad track. The De Anza Trail will provide that opportunity. As of 2003, there have been only two recorded instances on the 80+ RWTs in the United States of a trail user incident involving a trespasser from an adjacent trail. While not every railroad corridor is suitable for an adjacent trail, the De Anza trail meets all of the requirements identified in the FHWA report (adequate setback, low speed/volume trains, off railroad property). Specifically: Crossings: The trail does not include any new crossings of the railroad tracks. Setback: The trail exceeds the minimum recommended setback from a low traffic, low speed branch line of 10 feet from edge of trail to track centerline. The actual setback is closer to 50 feet from track centerline. Property: The trail is not on railroad property. Maintenance: The trail does not impact railroad operations or maintenance. 4 236 Security: The trail will enhance public oversight and management of the corridor. Capacity: The trail does not impact any future required tracks, and no additional tracks are proposed. Based on research of over 100 RWTs in the U.S. and internationally, including input from railroad companies, the California Public Utilities Commission, Federal Railroad Authority, and other parties in “Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions”, we do not expect the De Anza Trail to increase trespassing or safety incidents on the trail or by trail users if the facility is designed and operated to current standards and best practices, including a Trail Management Plan. a Current Trail plans appear to meet all existing state and local laws, regulations, and requirements, as well as the ‘best practices’ from around the U.S. The trail will provide local residents with a safe place to walk or bicycle away from automobiles and the railroad tracks. We agree with the CPUC letter that safety is always a concern whenever the general public and railroads are involved, and that it is prudentto take measures to protect both the public and the railroad. The FHWA Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions Study states that fencing is needed where trespassing exists on the railroad property. During our study of this corridor we did not note a pattern of regular trespassing at any one location. There are no “destinations” across the tracks for pedestrians and bicyclists using the trail, therefore there is no incentive or reason for trail users to cross the tracks. 5 237 Attractive Nuisance The proposed De Anza Trail will terminate at Saratoga Avenue, and tie the pathway into the sidewalk system along Saratoga Avenue. There are no trail facilities located further east along the railroad corridor, and therefore there is no incentive for people to trespass at this location any more than are currently doing so. The proposed fencing and signage will dissuade people from attempting to continue along the corridor once the trail terminates. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road The CPUC indicated a concern that there was no crossing of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. However, the improvement plans show the trail terminating on the east side of this road, and no crossing is proposed. Nearby intersections will allow people to cross this road legally and access the trail without crossing at the railroad tracks. Conclusions and Recommendations The following items summarize our conclusions and recommendations to the City both in regards to the specific CPUC and CEQA issues mentioned, but for the overall development of the trail. 1. The proposed De Anza Trail meets or exceeds all of the criteria for RWTs identified in the FHWA ‘Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned Literature Review, Current Practices, Conclusions’ report, therefore we expect this trail to function in a safe manner similar to the other 100+ RWts in the United States. 2. Despite the fact that the de Anza Trail is not expected to significantly increase safety problems in the corridor, the City can consider fencing to delineate the trail from the railroad property. 3. Install ‘No Trespassing’ and other signage including civil penalties. Identify the signage on improvement plans and detail sheets. 4. Prepare a Trail Management Plan (TMP) that clearly identifies how the trail would be operated and maintained. Elements of the TMP would include safety, liability, security, operations, maintenance responsibilities and practices, and emergency response procedures. 6 238 7 239 TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL PROJECT PREPARED FOR: City of Saratoga PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design, Inc. September 25, 2007 240 2 De Anza Trail Management Plan September 25, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ………………………………………………………………….3 Project Description …………………………………………………………3 Trail Management: …………………………………………………………3 Trail Manager Responsibilities …………………………………………………3 Trail Use Regulations …………………………………………………3 Trail Maintenance Plan ………………………………………………4 Security and Public Safety ……………………………………………….4 Emergency Response and Access ………………………………………6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Bike Trail Maintenance Activities and Frequencies …………………….4 241 3 De Anza Trail Management Plan September 25, 2007 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes operating and maintenance procedures for the De Anza Trail (‘the Trail’), a Class I trail located along an existing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way in Saratoga. The operations and maintenance procedures specified herein constitute the proposed management plan, which has been developed to identify the specific operation and maintenance activities and responsibilities involved with this project. The Trail Management Plan incorporates and implements the project description and mitigation measures in the Initial Study. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The De Anza Trail project would result in the development of an approximately 1.6-mile bike and pedestrian trail extending along a PG&E easement. The 12-foot wide trail would be surfaced with decomposed granite. The project also includes focused trail corridor improvements, including a five-space parking area and trail staging site with access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, re-vegetation along the trail as needed, and two bridges—one over Rodeo Creek and one over Saratoga Creek. The trail would connect to existing bike lanes along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue. TRAIL MANAGEMENT The objective of this management plan is to ensure that the Trail is managed and maintained in a way that maximizes safety and functionality for trail users. The Parks and Trails Master Plan (1991) provides guidance on many of these subjects and is cited (‘P&TM)’) where appropriate. TRAIL MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Saratoga will serve as the designated Trail Manager for this project and will be responsible for operating the Trail. The following sections address specific operating procedures and responsibilities. Trail Use Regulations The purpose of Trail regulations is to promote user safety and enhance the enjoyment of all users. Trail use regulations will be posted at main access points. Establishing that the Trail facility is a regulated traffic environment like other public rights-of-way is critical for compliance and often results in a facility requiring minimal enforcement. Appropriate civil statutes and 242 4 De Anza Trail Management Plan September 25, 2007 penalties will be referenced on regulatory signs other than basic traffic control signage such as speed limit signs. Under existing state and local laws the following regulations will apply to the Trail: No trespassing during hours Trail is closed No trespassing on UPRR and adjacent private property owner property All relevant provisions of the City municipal code, including but not limited to, sections 6- 15.050-080; section 6-15.140, section 7-30.050, section 9-60.040, section 11-05.030 addressing conduct in parks and public places shall apply, and section 11-05.040 prohibiting motorized vehicles in parks. Pets must always be on short leashes Pursuant to the Trail Management Plan, the following regulations will apply to the Trail: Hours of use: sunrise to sunset Keep to the right except when passing (P&TMP 3.7-1) Yield to on-coming traffic when passing Bicycles always yield to pedestrians Give an audible warning when passing Travel no more than two abreast Alcoholic beverages are not permitted on the Trail 20 mph speed limit Bicycles to yield to maintenance vehicles Trail subject to closure for maintenance Enforcement of civil regulations will be by the City of Saratoga Code Enforcement Officer and the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Department. Trail Maintenance Plan Proper maintenance of the Trail is of utmost importance for the productive use of the facility and the protection of the financial investment the community has made in the Trail. The following list represents suggested maintenance practices to be followed by the City (see also P&TMP 4.2-1). 243 5 De Anza Trail Management Plan September 25, 2007 Table 1: Trail Maintenance Activities and Frequencies Item Estimated Frequency Shoulder and grass mowing As needed (3 times per year average) Trash pickup/disposal Weekly Path surface repair As needed Graffiti removal Immediately or within 24 hours of discovery Trail litter Monthly - annually as needed Weed control Monthly - as needed Sign replacement/repair As needed The Trail project includes limited landscaping and amenities (e.g., signage and maps) provided as part of the project at the northern trailhead only. City maintenance responsibility will be limited to the Trail and Trail elements only (see table above), and will not include any other features. As City staff will travel the trail on a regular basis they will note items needing repair—also the bike trail users can inform the City if problems are identified. Security and Public Safety Studies by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy indicate that the frequency and character of crime and other problems on trails is generally similar to that of the adjoining communities. These studies have also shown that the best and most effective method of enhancing safety and security is to design a functional facility that is well used by the general public. Trails in isolated locations exist around the Bay Area (including Santa Clara County) and California and have not experienced significant safety problems. The approach to safety and security outlined in this plan is to provide reasonable security features and be prepared to enhance those efforts in the future if safety and security prove to be problems. Hours of Operation: The Trail will be open for use between sunrise and sunset. Signage: Installation of standardized regulatory signs at regular intervals along the Bike Trail will help users internalize the rules. This could include “Bicyclists Yield to Pedestrians,” “Pass on the Left,” “Slower Traffic Stay Right” and speed limits (if applicable). Patrols and Enforcement: Based on similar trails nationwide, the Trail is expected to be generally self-enforcing by the general public. The City staff (or contractors) will patrol the trail on an as- 244 6 De Anza Trail Management Plan September 25, 2007 needed basis, reporting issues to the City’s Code Enforcement Officer and the County Sheriff’s Office as they are encountered. The ultimate level of patrols will be based on reported incidents and problems (P&TMP 4.2-2). Security Features: The City shall provide the following security measures: 1. Provide emergency services (e.g. fire protection, code enforcement, Sheriff patrols) with a map of the trail, along with vehicle access points. 2. Maintain site vegetation along the trail to maximize visibility. 3. Enforce speed limits and other rules of the road. 4. Provide adequate access to the trail to minimize trespassing. 5. Provide ‘No Trespassing’ signs along the City/UPRR property line every 200 feet (P&TMP 4.2-2). Emergency Response and Access Emergency access for safety, security, or maintenance purposes will be based on an established protocol between City of Saratoga fire department and the Santa Clara County Sheriff. The initial responding party will notify the other departments as soon as possible. The Trail itself is designed to allow emergency vehicles full access to the facility and adequate vehicular access/egress. 245 246 247 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING SARATOGA DE ANZA TRAIL I. The Cit y of Saratoga has prepared an Init ial Study and proposed Mit igated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) regarding the Conceptual Plan for the Saratoga de Anza Trail dated August 24, 2005 (also referred to below as the “Project”). The trail would be located along an exist ing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) easement pursuant to an agreement with PG&E. The Conceptual Plan is attached to the staff report accompanying this Reso lution and hereby incorporated in this Resolut ion. II. The IS/MND was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Qualit y Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sect ions 15000 et seq.). The IS/MND is attached to the staff report accompanying this Reso lut ion and hereby incorporated in this Reso lut ion. III. The IS ident ified potentially significant adverse effects on the environment fro m the proposed Project but found that mit igation measures proposed for the Project and made a part of the Project would avo id the effects or mit igate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. IV. The IS and a notice of intent to adopt the proposed MND were circulated for public review fro m April 17, 2007 to May 18, 2007. V. The Cit y received several comments addressing potentially adverse environmental impacts, but found that these effects would be avo ided or mit igated to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. VI. On October 3, 2007 the Cit y Council conducted a duly noticed public meet ing on the adequacy o f the IS/MND at which oral and written comments and a staff report were presented to the Cit y Council. The Cit y Council reviewed and considered the information in the IS/MND, staff report, public comments, and other documents in the administrative record for completeness and compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. VII. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cit y Council hereby makes the fo llowing findings: 1. Notice of the meet ings concerning the MND was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and local Cit y requirements; and 248 2. All Interested parties desiring to comment on the IS/MND were given the opportunit y to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy o f the IS/MND prior to this act ion by the Cit y Council; and 3. All comments raised during the public comment period on the IS/MND and during the meet ing were responded to adequately; and 4. The Cit y Council was presented with and has reviewed all o f the information in the administrative record; and 6. The IS/MND has been completed in compliance wit h the intent and requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and the IS/MND represents the Cit y Council’s independent judgment. The City Council has considered the information contained in the IS/MND and the record in considering the Project and related actions; and 7. Based on the ent ire record of this matter, there is no evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and 8. The documents const ituting the record of proceedings upon which this decisio n is based are located in the Cit y of Saratoga Department of Public Works and are maintained by the Director of that Department. VIII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cit y Council hereby adopts the Mit igated Negative Declarat ion with the fo llowing revisio n: Mit igation Measure TRAF3 shall be revised as fo llows: “The Cit y shall install signage stating “Trail Dead Ends 0.3mile” east west of Glen Brae Drive.” IX. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cit y Council hereby adopts the Mit igation Monitoring and Reporting Plan dated September 25, 2007 attached to the staff report accompanying this Reso lution and hereby made a part of this Reso lut ion (“MMRP”) and the Trail Management Plan dated September 25, 2007 attached to the staff report accompanying this Reso lution and hereby made a part of this Reso lut ion. X. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cit y Council hereby directs the Public Works Director to monitor compliance with the mit igation measures required in the Project as specified in the MMRP to mit igate significant environmental effects, as described in the IS, attached herein. XI. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cit y Council hereby adopts the Conceptual Plan for the Saratoga de Anza Trail dated August 24, 2005 and declares that the name of the trail shall be Joe’s Trail at the Saratoga de Anza Trail. XII. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cit y Council hereby directs the Public Works Director to pursue an agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)to authorize use of the PG&E easement for the Project and to take such other actions as may be required 249 to implement the Conceptual Plan and MMRP. The above and foregoing reso lut ion was passed and adopted at a regular meet ing of the Saratoga Cit y Council held on the 3rd day o f October, 2007 by the fo llowing vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmit h, ViceMayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Cathleen Bo yer, City Clerk 250 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: ______ ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – Public Hearing ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Review CIP project priorities reflecting Council direction from the CIP Study Session held on September 5th and provide direction to staff. 2. Open the Public Hearing for the F.Y. 07/08 CIP Update. 3. Continue Public Hearing to the November 7, 2007, City Council Meeting to allow review by the Planning Commission for general plan conformance and environmental approvals. REPORT SUMMARY: CIP Process: The scheduling over time of public improvements is an essential task of a CIP and is based on a series of priorities according to need, desire, importance, and of the City’s ability to fund the various projects. A comprehensive CIP can provide many benefits to the City. The following are a few examples of these benefits: 1. Ensures that public facilities and circulation portions of the general plan are carried out. 2. Remedies deficiencies in the City’s infrastructure. 3. Ensures projects built when they are needed. 4. Ensures that funds can be provided from a variety of sources in a logical manner over a multi-year period. Recommended criteria to consider when making choices on project priorities: o Importance relative to community needs. o Resources available. o Operation and Maintenance Costs. 251 Some projects may be fully funded over a multi-year period. Other projects may be included but unfunded, awaiting grants and special funding sources not available at the time of the CIP development. In other cases Council may wish to fund design and engineering costs only for projects likely to be submitted for competitive grant applications requiring projects that are pre- approved and for which designs have been completed. Once public input and further direction from City Council on the draft changes to the CIP are received, staff will submit new projects to the Planning Commission for review of general plan conformance and environmental approvals. The process will conclude with a final public hearing and adoption of the new CIP projects by City Council on November 7th. September 25th City Council CIP Study Session At the September 25th City Council CIP Study Session, Council gave staff direction regarding project funding priorities, which are summarized in the table below: PARK IN LIEU FUNDED PARK & TRAIL PROJECTS Available Fund Balance FY 2006/07 Available Fund Balance $23,228 FY 2007/08 New Funding 393,300 Total Funding Available 416,528 Recommended Project Funding Calabazas Creek Trail Unfunded Hakone Gardens Visitor Center Matching Funds $250,000 Ravenswood Park Playground Upgrade Project 55,000 North Campus Recreation Enhancements 18,528 Carnelian Glen Trail Foot Bridge Replacements 18,000 WVC Soccer Field *(see note below) 75,000 Total Recommended Project Funding 416,528 *NOTE: CC directed staff to discuss funding issue with WVC prior to final CIP funding approval for cost sharing and/or additional use credits. HIGHWAY 9 - PHASE II PROJECT Project Cost (Saratoga Local Match $90k): $1,020,000 Project Funding Available From: Caltrans Grant 900,000 Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Match 30,000 Reallocation of funds from El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain Project 85,321 Prospect Median Master Plan Partial Project Balance 4,679 Total Project Funding 1,020,000 2 of 5 252 VILLAGE PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT Project Cost (Saratoga Local Match $115k): $540,000 Project Funding Available From: VTA Grant 425,000 Transfer funds from Village Sidewalk Project: 115,000 Total Project Funding 540,000 VILLAGE ENTRANCE MONUMENT: Project Cost $10,321 Project Funding Available From: Prospect Median Master Plan Project Balance 10,321 Total Project Funding 10,321 VILLAGE NEWS RACK ENCLOSURES: Project Cost $30,000 Project Funding Available From: Reallocation of Funds from Village Improvement Project 30,000 Total Project Funding 30,000 VILLAGE FAÇADE PROGRAM: Project Cost $20,000 Project Funding Available From: Reallocation of Funds from Village Improvement Project $20,000 Total Project Funding: 20,000 Additionally, a summary of the grants received since the last FY CIP update are listed below: NEW CIP GRANT FUNDING Street Resurfacing PROP 1B 506,375 STIP 389,385 Roadway Safety CDBG 74,526 CALTRANS HSP 900,000 Sidewalks CDBG – Sara.-Sunny. Road ADA Curb Ramps 57,309 TDA - Saratoga Avenue Sidewalks 42,489 3 of 5 253 CDT - Village Pedestrian Enhancements 425,000 Total New Grant Funding 2,395,084 CIP Spreadsheet: This year’s CIP contains a total of 68 projects. 25 projects are new to the CIP of which 11 have been previously approved by City Council or were included in the operating budget. The remainder proposed CIP projects are candidate projects recommended by City Commissions, City Staff, or City Council. There are five main categories of funding: 1) CIP Funds, 2) Park Development Funds, 3) Grants, 4) Other sources (local agency cooperatives, etc.), and 5) Gas Tax. In addition to the CIP project name and description, the CIP spreadsheet contains the following information: Column A lists the estimated project cost. Column B lists the amount budgeted, which is less than or equal to the estimated project cost dependent on the level of adopted funding. Columns C thru G lists the funding sources. Column H lists the project expenditure to date, which in this case is June 30, 2007. Column I lists the project balance as of July 1, 2007, and is equal to Column B minus Column I. Column J lists the unfunded project amount, and is equal to Column A minus Column B. FISCAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time. Depends on the final CIP project list. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Not Applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Subsequent Public Hearings will be held with both the Planning Commission and City Council. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: 4 of 5 254 5 of 5 Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. CIP Project Spreadsheet. 255 PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY ESTIMATED APPROVED PROJECT PROJECT UNFUNDED #COST BUDGET CIP PARK DEV.GRANTS OTHER GAS TAX EXPENDITURE BALANCE PROJECT PROJECT STATUS SUMMARY # FUND FUND SOURCE FUND TO DATE AMOUNT (NOTES) (06/30/07)(07/01/07) STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS A B C D E F G H I J Street Repair & Resurfacing Projects 1 Annual Street Resurfacing:Annual street resurfacing connected to the City's Pavement Management Program 1,434,358 1,434,358 463,983 0 506,375 0 464,000 0 1,434,358 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding previously in the operating budget.1 2 Annual Street Restriping:Annual Street Restriping Work 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding previously in the operating budget.2 3 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Resurfacing:Overlay and Pavement Rehabilitation on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Blauer to Herriman)600,000 600,000 210,615 0 389,385 0 0 0 600,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding previously in the operating budget.3 Roadway Safety Improvements 4 Traffic Safety:Traffic safety funds for implementation of safety improvements approved by Traffic Safety Commission.100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 58,645 41,355 0 Project funds minor safety improvements approved by the TSC.4 5 Highway 9 Safety Project Phase I:Saratoga's portion of the three City Highway 9 Safety corridor project. Project to focus on bicycle improvements. 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 41,040 58,960 0 Construction to begin Fall 2007.5 6 Highway 9/Oak Place Pedestrian Crosswalk Safety Improvements:Enhanced in-pavement crosswalk safety lights @ Highway 9 & Oak Place. Caltrans approval required. Const. Phase.203,310 203,310 34,110 0 169,200 0 0 199,001 4,309 0 Project 99% complete.6 7 Solar Powered Radar Feedback Signs: Provides funding for two solar powered radar feedback signs. Location(s) to be determined by the Traffic Commission.62,000 62,000 62,000 0 0 0 0 0 62,000 0 Radar feedback signs on order.7 8 Cox Avenue Railroad Crossing Arms Upgrade:Railroad crossing surface upgrade for safety and improved drivability.539,641 539,641 70,000 0 469,641 0 0 424,886 114,755 0 Project 99% complete.8 9 ADA Accessible Traffic Signal Project:Audible Signal Project at various traffic signal locations throughout the City. 74,526 74,526 0 0 74,526 0 0 0 74,526 0 New Project FY 07/08. CDBG grant funded. Approved by City Council on 3/21/07.9 10 Highway 9 Safety Project Phase II:Project to focus on ped improvements along the Highway 9 corridor. Majority of improvements in Saratoga.1,020,000 1,020,000 90,000 0 900,000 30,000 0 0 1,020,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. Fundiing identified. Approved by City Council on 4/4/07.10 11 Herriman Avenue Crosswalk Improvements:Crosswalk enhancements located on Herriman Avenue @ Lexington and Saratoga Vista. 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 New Project FY 07/08. $50k at Lexington and $25K at Saratoga Vista. Approved by TSC on 6/07/07. Funding Unidentified.11 12 Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 1:Asphalt sidewalk/pathway leveling course between AC berm and PCC Curb. 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 New Project FY 07/08. Funding option to place walkway inside of roadway. Approved by TSC on 6/07/07. Funding Unidentified.12 13 Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 2:New sidewalk/pathway along the south side including retaining walls and landscape modifications. 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 New Project FY 07/08. Funding option to place walkway outside of roadway. Approved by TSC on 6/07/07. Funding unidentified.13 14 Pedestrian Refuge Area at Quito/McCoy Intersection: Center refuge area and crossing improvements on Quito Road at McCoy.15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 New Project FY 07/08. Approved by TSC on 4/12/07. Funding unidentified.14 15 Glen Brae Avenue Median Choker: Concrete median choker on Glen Brae Avenue for traffic calming.15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 New Project FY 07/08. Approved by TSC on 2/15/07. Funding unidenified.15 16 Komina Walking Path: Walking Path on one side of Komina adjacent to Oak Street School.75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 New Project FY 07/08. Approved by TSC on 2/09/06. Funding unidentifed.16 17 Saratoga Elementary School Driveway and Sidewalk Modification:Driveway and sidewalk modification to increase capacity of drop-off lane.70,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 New Project FY 07/08. Approved by TSC on 2/09/06. Funding unidentifed.17 Street Median & Landscape Improvements 18 Median Repairs (Landscaping/Irrigation):Plant replacement and irrigation improvements in existing medians.182,500 182,500 182,500 0 0 0 0 178,479 4,021 0 Work ongoing. 18 19 Village Tree Lighting - Side Streets:Install necessary electrical improvements for side street tree lighting.50,000 50,000 7,000 0 0 43,000 0 0 50,000 0 Work to be incorporated into future Village Improvement Project.19 20 Prospect Road Medians - Master Plan:Development of Median Master Plan on Prospect Road.35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Consultant contract approved. $15k available for redistribution to other CIP projects.20 21 City Entrance Signs/Monuments:Installation of Entry Signs/Monument at City entry points where none exist.17,500 17,500 17,500 0 0 0 0 4,033 13,467 0 Existing monuments rehabilitated. New entry monuments to be determined.21 Sidewalks, Curbs & Storm Drains 0 22 Annual Sidewalk Repair:Removal of tripping hazards on City owned sidewalks.220,000 220,000 220,000 0 0 0 0 111,395 108,605 0 Work ongoing.22 23 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Project (pathways):Continuation of Gateway Project directed at pathway improvements.74,147 74,147 74,147 0 0 0 0 0 74,147 0 23 24 El Quito Area Curb & Gutter Replacement:Replacement of rolled curb & gutter for drainage mitigation. 460,264 460,264 460,264 0 0 0 0 295,265 164,999 0 Work ongoing. 24 25 Sobey Road Culvert Repair:Replacement of CMP Culvert undermined during winter of 05/06.150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 0 Project completion scheduled prior to Winter 2007.25 26 Annual Storm Drain Upgrades:2nd round of annual funds for storm drain rehabilitation and drainage improvements. 252,136 252,136 220,000 0 0 0 0 240,822 11,314 0 Work ongoing.26 27 Village Streetscape Improvements (Sidewalk/C&G):Replace sidewalk and curb & gutter for safety and beautification.741,000 741,000 0 0 0 741,000 0 3,154 737,846 0 $741,000 funded by Caltrans.27 28 El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain Improvements:Storm drainage improvements in the Monte Vista/El Camino Grande area.300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 Interim drainage fix completed. 28 29 Chester Avenue Storm Drain Improvements:Storm drainage improvements in the Chester Avenue area.178,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178,000 Unfunded Project.29 30 Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements:Construction of new sidewalk improvements on Quito Road between Highway 85 and Allendale Avenue.150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 Unfunded Project.30 31 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ADA Curb Ramps:ADA curb ramp improvements at various locations along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.57,309 57,309 0 0 57,309 0 0 0 57,309 0 New Project FY 07/08. CDBG grant funded. Approved by City Council on 11/01/06.31 32 Village Pedestrian Enhancement Project Crosswalk safety improvements and other pedestrian related enhancements in the Village.540,000 540,000 115,000 0 425,000 0 0 0 540,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. VTA grant funded. $115,000 required for local match. Funding identified.32 33 Village News Rack Enclosures:Enhancements to the Village News Rack Enclosures.30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding identified.33 34 Village Façade Matching Program:Matching funds to business/property owners directed at improving building facades. 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding identified.34 35 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Project (pathways):Continuation of Gateway Project directed at pathway improvements.74,147 74,147 74,147 0 0 0 0 0 74,147 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding identified.35 36 Saratoga Avenue Sidewalk Project:Continuation of sidewalk/pathway improvements along Saratoga Avenue:42,489 42,489 0 0 42,489 0 0 0 42,489 0 New Project FY 07/08. TDA grant funded. Approved by City Council on 05/16/07.36 Bridge and Retaining Wall Projects 37 Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project (Design):Replacement of two existing substandard bridges on Quito Road - Design Phase 465,729 465,729 41,800 0 364,799 59,130 0 455,999 9,730 0 Design 95% complete. Project delayed due to right of way issues.37 38 Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project (Construction):Replacement of two existing substandard bridges on Quito Road - Environmental/Construction Phase 2,978,000 2,978,000 113,000 0 2,636,423 227,718 0 0 2,978,000 0 Project delayed due to right of way issues.38 39 4th Street Bridge:Rehabilitation of existing bridge at 4th & Saratoga Creek.586,000 586,000 100,000 0 486,915 0 0 0 586,000 0 HBRR application submitted.39 Total Street Improvement Projects $12,218,056 $11,140,056 $2,841,066 $0$6,522,062$1,100,848 $644,000 $2,012,719 $9,092,337 $1,078,000 PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Park Projects 40 Kevin Moran Park Improvements:Development of unimproved areas at Kevin Moran Park.1,500,000 1,500,000 1,197,546 0 302,454 0 0 85,248 1,414,752 0 Project ongoing. $302,454 from 2002 Park Bond Act. 40 41 West Valley College Soccer Field Improvements Funding for Improvements to two soccer fields located at West Valley College.325,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 94,132 155,868 75,000 One of two playfields improved. Project requires $75k to complete 2nd play field due to retaining wall costs.41 42 Beauchamps Park Playground Safety Project: Replacement of existing substandard play equipment.50,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 25,424 24,576 0 Project 95% complete.42 43 Wildwood Park Improvements:Rebuild of Wildwood Park wood stage due to structural integrity issues and other minor improvements to the park.40,000 40,000 0 0 40,000 0 0 27,728 12,272 0 Stage rehabilitation complete.43 .44 Wildwood Park Water Feature - Seating Improvements:Installation of concrete seating improvements around the perimeter of the water feature.10,000 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 44 45 Historic Park Landscaping Improvements:Removal of existing landscaping and installation of new landscaping and irrigation.37,200 37,200 0 37,200 0 0 0 0 37,200 0 45 46 Park/Trail Repairs:Various infrastructure improvements to City parks and trails.230,000 230,000 230,000 0 0 0 0 185,442 44,558 0 Work ongoing. 46 47 Citywide Tree Replanting:Citywide tree replanting project including irrigation for parks, medians, right-of-ways, and open spaces.175,000 175,000 0 0 0 175,000 0 68,470 106,530 0 Funding via tree violation fines. Work also includes tree replanting along City right-of-ways.47 48 Hakone Garden D/W:Driveway and retaining wall improvements.200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 0 35,717 164,283 0 Driveway mitigation work to be included in 2007/2008 PMP project.48 49 Hakone Gardens Visitor Center:Matching Funds from Park Development Fees for Visitor Center at Hakone Gardens.250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 Unfunded project.49 50 Ravenswood Park Playground Upgrade Project:Replacement of existing substandard play equipment.55,000 55,000 0 55,000 0 0 0 0 55,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding identified.50 51 Wildwood Park Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation:Rehabilitation of existing pedestrian bridge to Wildwood Park.125,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125,000 New Project FY 07/08. Funding unidentified.51 52 El Quito Park Improvements:Various improvements to El Quito Park including new water fountain, rehab of ex. picnic area and frontage landscaping.125,000 125,000 0 0 0 125,000 0 0 125,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. Landscape and Lighting funded project.52 Trail Projects 53 De Anza Trail:Development of new trail along the PG&E right-of-way.1,997,577 1,997,577 0 0 1,598,062 399,515 0 291,421 1,706,156 0 Conceptual design complete. Environmental to be complete fall 2007. 53 54 Heritage Orchard Perimeter Path Improvements:Construction of a dirt path around the perimeter of the Heritage Orchard.25,000 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 Work tentatively scheduled prior to Winter 2007.54 55 Trail Segment #3 Repairs: Erosion repair work to Trail Segment #3 ('Tank Trail').16,500 16,500 0 16,500 0 0 0 3,024 13,476 0 Work ongoing.55 56 Teerlink Ranch Trail Repair:Repair of trail segment located in Teerlink Ranch damaged during winter of 05/06.30,000 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 Work scheduled to begin in Fall 2007.56 57 San Marcos Open Space Trail:Development of a new trail through the San Marcos Open Space.27,500 27,500 0 27,500 0 0 0 2,172 25,328 0 Work ongoing. Completion scheduled Fall 2007.57 58 Calabazas Creek Trail:Installation of a pathway running along Calabazas Creek from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to the UPRR Tracks.100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 Unfunded Project.58 59 Odd Fellows Trail Development:Development of a new trail through the Odd Fellows property establishing a link to the San Marcos Open Space.60,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,500 Unfunded Project.59 60 Carnelian Glen Trail - Foot Bridge Replacement:Replace three foot bridges along the Carnelian Glen Trail.18,000 18,000 0 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding identified.60 Total Park & Trail Projects $5,397,277 $4,786,777 $1,877,546 $269,200$1,940,516 $699,515 $0 $818,778 $3,949,999 $610,500 FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 61 Historical Park Buildings - Fire Alarm System:Installation of fire alarm system in the Historical Buildings located in Historical Park. 7,425 7,425 7,425 0 0 0 0 882 6,543 0 61 62 North Campus Improvements Exterior and interior upgrades to the facilities at the North Campus. 501,000 501,000 500,000 0 0 1,000 0 178,975 322,025 0 Work ongoing.62 63 Warner Hutton House Improvements:Improvements to the Warner Hutton for rentals:94,100 94,100 94,100 0 0 0 0 64,599 29,501 0 Work ongoing.63 64 Civic Center Landscape Improvements:Landscape, irrigation, and hardscape improvements at the Civic Center,110,000 110,000 110,000 0 0 0 0 46,296 63,704 0 Work ongoing.64 65 McWilliams House/Book-Go-Around Fire Alarm:Provides funding for installation of fire alarm system for the McWilliams House and Book-Go-Around buildings.25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 65 66 Annual Facility Improvements:Provides funding for various facility maintenance projects.100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 New Project FY 07/08. Previously included in the operating budget.66 Total Facility Projects $837,525 $837,525 $811,525 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $290,752 $546,773 $0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS 67 Financial System Upgrade:Financial software and hardware system upgrade. 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 29,266 70,734 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding previously in the operating budget.67 68 Document Imaging Project - Public Works Transfer of hard copy documents into electronic imaging format.113,000 113,000 113,000 0 0 0 0 14,454 98,546 0 New Project FY 07/08. Funding previously in the operating budget.68 Total Administrative Projects $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,720 $169,280 $0 TOTAL ALL CIP PROJECTS $18,665,858 $16,977,358 $5,743,137 $269,200$8,462,578$1,801,363 $644,000 $3,165,969 $13,758,389 $1,688,500 New CIP project with funding source partially or wholly unidentified. KEY: New CIP project with funding source identified and previously approved by City Council or project previously included in the operating budget. Prior year approved CIP projects including funded and unfunded projects. Capital Improvement Plan Project List IDENTIFIED SOURCE OF FUNDS FY 2007-2008 Update 256 PROJECT # Public Safety Projects 1 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Seagull Traffic Signal: 2 Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project: 3 Herriman Avenue Traffic Signal: 4 Verde Vista Ln. Traffic Signal: 5 4th Street Bridge: 6 Traffic Calming (NTMP): 7 Safe Routes to Schools: 8 ADA Improvements (Hakone): 9 Highway 9 Traffic Signal Modifications: 10 Playground Safety (Brookglen, El Quito, Wildwood): 11 Kirkmont Dr. Traffic Signal: 12 Sobey Road/Quito Road Traffic Improvements: 13 Norton Road Fire Access: 14 Aloha Street Safety Improvements: 15 Highway 9/Oak Place Pedestrian Signal: Total Public Safety Projects 257 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Seagull Traffic Signal: Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project: Herriman Avenue Traffic Signal: Verde Vista Ln. Traffic Signal: 4th Street Bridge: Traffic Calming (NTMP): Safe Routes to Schools: ADA Improvements (Hakone): Highway 9 Traffic Signal Modifications: Playground Safety (Brookglen, El Quito, Wildwood): Kirkmont Dr. Traffic Signal: Sobey Road/Quito Road Traffic Improvements: Norton Road Fire Access: Aloha Street Safety Improvements: Highway 9/Oak Place Pedestrian Signal: Total Public Safety Projects Infrastructure Projects City Wide Traffic Signal Upgrades: El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain Improvements: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road "Gateway" Improvements: El Quito Area Curb & Gutter Replacement: Village Streetscape Improvements (Sidewalk/C&G): Village Streetscape Improvements (Landscaping): Storm Drain Upgrades: Median Repairs (Landscaping/Irrigation): Cox Avenue Railroad Crossing Arms Upgrade: Prospect Avenue Medians: Blaney Plaza Improvements - Master Plan Phase: City Entrance Signs/Monuments: Blaney Plaza Improvements - Construction Phase: Chester Avenue Storm Drain Improvements: Total Infrastructure Projects 258 New traffic signal @ Saratoga-Sunnyvale & Seagull Replacement of two bridges on Quito Road New traffic signal @ Herriman & Saratoga. Warrant study needed. New traffic signal @ Verde Vista & Sara-Sunny. Meets warrants. Replacement of existing substandard bridge at 4th & Saratoga Creek. Annual funding for implementation of traffic calming toolkit. Annual funding for implementation of Safe Routes to School Program. ADA improvements per Hakone Foundation lease agreement. Modification to Hwy 9 traffic signal in connection w/new fire dept. Replacement of existing substandard play equipment. New traffic signal @ Kirkmont & Sara-Sunny. Warrant study needed. Software and hardware upgrades to the City's traffic signals Storm drain improvements in the El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Area Roadway improvements to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Replacement of rolled curb & gutter for drainage mitigation. Replace sidewalk and curb & gutter for safety and beautification. Landscape beautification improvements. Annual funds for storm drain rehabilitation and drainage improvements. Plant replacement and irrigation improvements in existing medians. Upgrade of crossing arm in conjunction with rail surface improvements. New landscaped medians for beautification of Prospect Avenue. 259 New traffic signal @ Saratoga-Sunnyvale & Seagull. Meets warrants. Replacement of two existing substandard bridges on Quito Road. New traffic signal @ Herriman & Saratoga. Warrant study required. New traffic signal @ Verde Vista & Sara-Sunny. Meets warrants. Rehabilitation of existing bridge at 4th & Saratoga Creek. Annual funding for implementation of traffic calming toolkit. Funding for implementation of Safe Routes to School. ADA improvements per Hakone Foundation lease agreement. Modification to Hwy 9 traffic signal in connection w/new fire dept. Replacement of existing substandard play equipment. New traffic signal @ Kirkmont & Sara-Sunny. Warrant study needed. Sobey Road/Quito Road roadway improvements to increase safety in the vicinity of Marshall Lane School. Construction of a fire access road connecting Norton Road to Montalvo's Artist In Residency Road. Roadway safety improvements at the intersection of Aloha Street and Highway 9. New pedestrian traffic signal @ Highway 9 & Oak Place. Warrant study and Caltrans approval required.. City wide signal upgrades including integration of smart corridor technology. Storm drainage improvements in the MonteVista/El Camino Grande area. Infrastructure improvements to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road concentrated between Prospect Road and the UPRR. Replacement of rolled curb & gutter for drainage mitigation. Replace sidewalk and curb & gutter for safety and beautification. Landscape beautification improvements. Annual funds for storm drain rehabilitation and drainage improvements. Plant replacement and irrigation improvements in existing medians. Railroad crossing surface upgrade for safety and improved drivability. New landscaped medians for beautification of Prospect Avenue. Master plan for the rehabilitation and beautification of Blaney Plaza. Installation of Entry Signs/Monument at City entry points where none exist. Implementation of improvements based on the Blaney Plaza Master Plan. Storm drainage improvements in the Chester Avenue area. 260 $152,500 $152,500 $0 $0$120,000 $32,500 $0 2,372,900 2,372,900 0 0 0 158,193 1,898,320 150,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 100,000 0 0 0 400,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 317,500 250,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 250,000 250,000 225,000 0 0 0 0 350,000 350,000 0 66,000 0 0 284,000 150,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 110,000 110,000 110,000 0 0 0 0 49,500 49,500 49,500 0 0 0 0 145,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 $5,347,400$4,503,900 $949,500$66,000$120,000 $190,693$2,782,320 $508,705 $508,705 $0 $0 $0 $72,705 $436,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 0 3,112,380 3,112,380 0 0 0 2,232,280 880,000 550,000 460,264 460,264 0 0 0 0 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 275,000 225,000 225,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 182,500 182,500 182500 182,500 0 0 0 0 539,641 539,641 70,000 0 0 0 469,641 500,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 19,400 19,400 19,400 0 0 0 0 17,500 17,500 17,500 0 0 0 0 121,000 121,000 121,000 0 0 0 0 178,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $7,204,126$5,561,390 $1,370,664 $0 $0$2,404,985$1,785,641 261 $0 $152,500 $0 316,387 465,004$1,907,896 0 0 $5,000 0 0 $5,000 0 0 $500,000 0 68,376 $181,624 0 26,044 $23,956 50,000 65,501 $184,499 25,000 167,066 $82,934 0 346,201 $3,799 0 0 $5,000 0 100,799 $49,201 0 8,000 $102,000 0 0 $49,500 0 4,000 $0 $391,387 $1,403,492$3,100,408 $0 $441,754 $66,951 0 0 $100,000 0 716,915$2,395,465 0 0 $460,264 0 0 $0 0 85,526 $139,474 0 250,000 $0 0 133,017 $49,483 0 124,916 $414,725 0 0 $25,000 19,400 $0 0 0 $17,500 0 10,161 $110,839 0 0 $0 $0 $1,781,689$3,779,701 262 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Seagull Traffic Signal:$152,500 $152,500 $0 $0 Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project:2,372,900 2,372,900 0 0 Herriman Avenue Traffic Signal:150,000 5,000 5,000 0 Verde Vista Ln. Traffic Signal:150,000 5,000 5,000 0 4th Street Bridge:500,000 500,000 100,000 0 Traffic Calming (NTMP):250,000 250,000 250,000 0 Safe Routes to Schools:250,000 50,000 50,000 0 ADA Improvements (Hakone):317,500 250,000 0 0 Highway 9 Traffic Signal Modifications:250,000 250,000 225,000 0 Playground Safety (Brookglen, El Quito, Wildwood):350,000 350,000 0 66,000 Kirkmont Dr. Traffic Signal:150,000 5,000 5,000 0 Sobey Road/Quito Road Traffic Improvements:150,000 150,000 150,000 0 Norton Road Fire Access:110,000 110,000 110,000 0 Aloha Street Safety Improvements:49,500 49,500 49,500 0 Highway 9/Oak Place Pedestrian Signal:145,000 4,000 0 0 Total Public Safety Projects$5,347,400 $4,503,900 $949,500 $66,000 Infrastructure Projects City Wide Traffic Signal Upgrades:$508,705 $508,705 $0 $0 El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain Improvements:100,000 100,000 0 0 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road "Gateway" Improvements:3,112,380 3,112,380 0 0 El Quito Area Curb & Gutter Replacement:550,000 460,264 460,264 0 Village Streetscape Improvements (Sidewalk/C&G):850,000 0 0 0 Village Streetscape Improvements (Landscaping):275,000 225,000 225,000 0 Storm Drain Upgrades:250,000 250,000 250,000 0 Median Repairs (Landscaping/Irrigation):182,500 182,500 182500 182,500 0 Cox Avenue Railroad Crossing Arms Upgrade:539,641 539,641 70,000 0 Prospect Avenue Medians:500,000 25,000 25,000 0 Blaney Plaza Improvements - Master Plan Phase:19,400 19,400 19,400 0 City Entrance Signs/Monuments:17,500 17,500 17,500 0 Blaney Plaza Improvements - Construction Phase:121,000 121,000 121,000 0 Chester Avenue Storm Drain Improvements:178,000 0 0 0 Total Infrastructure Projects$7,204,126 $5,561,390 $1,370,664 $0 30 McWilliams House Termite damage repair at Chamber Building.Improvements to structure. 31 Civic Center Master Plan (Design):Comprehensive Master Plan preparation for Civic Center Comprehensive Master Plan preparation for Civic Center. 32 Animal Control Facility:City's share of JPA cost for Construction of New Animal Control Facility 33 Civic Theater Lower Perimeter Re-Roof:Re-Roof the lower perimeter of the Civic Theater. 34 Civic Center Eave Replacement (Community Dev./Engineering):Replacement of courtyard eaves on the Community Development/Engineering wing of the Civic Center. 35 Historical Park Buildings - Fire Alarm System:Installation of fire alarm system in the Historical Buildings located in Historical Park. 36 Village Façade Matching Fund:Matching funds to business/property owners directed at improving building facades. 37 Book-Go-Around Repairs:Roof repair and storage room repair work at the Book-Go-Around building. 38 North Campus Improvements - Fellowship Hall:ADA restroom improvements and interior upgrades at the North Campus Fellowship Hall. 263 $120,000$32,500 $0 $0 ## 0158,193#######316,387 ## 0 0 0 0 0# 0 0 0 0 0# 0 0400,000 0 0# 0 0 0 0 ## 0 0 0 0 ## 0 0200,000 50,000 ## 0 0 0 25,000 ## 0 0284,000 0 ## 0 0 0 0 0# 0 0 0 0 ## 0 0 0 0 ## 0 0 0 0 0# 0 0 0 0 ## $120,000 ##############$391,387 ## $0$72,705#######$0 ## 0100,000 0 0 0# 0#######880,000 0 ## 0 0 0 0 0# 0 0 0 0 0# 0 0 0 0 ## 0 0 0 0 ## 0 0 0 0 ## 0 0469,641 0 ## 0 0 0 0 0# 0 0 0 ## 0 0 0 0 0# 0 0 0 0 ## 0 0 0 0 0# $0 ##############$0 ## 150,000 30,000 30,00000000 30,000 $0 250,000 0 000000 0 $0 300,000300,000 300,00000000 300,000 $0 49,500 49,500 49,50000000 41,855 $7,645 25,000 17,600 17,60000000 0 $17,600 7,425 7,425 7,42500000 882 $6,543 50,000 50,000 50,00000000 21,164 $28,836 35,000 35,000 000000 33,326 $1,674 151,800 151,800 151,800 00000 0 $151,800 264 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 15 DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Council Discussion Regarding West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board Consideration of Hard-To-Service Rates Effective July 1, 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Discussion Regarding West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board Consideration of Hard-To-Service Rates Effective July 1, 2008 and provide feedback to the City’s Authority representative. REPORT SUMMARY: Background In 1989 the Legislation of the State of Califon enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939). On October 1, 1997, as a result of AB939, the cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga, and the Town of Los Gatos formed the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority (Authority). Pursuant to Government Code Section 6500 et. Seq. the Authority could manage and oversee the “Franchised Services” originating in those cities. Among the powers granted to the Authority is the power to arrange for the “Franchised Services”. The Board has the power to award an exclusive contract to a qualified company for “Franchised Services”. On July 1, 1997 the Authority entered into a franchise agreement with Green Valley Disposal Company, Inc. for refuse and recycling services. Because the agreement expired on February 28, 2007 the Authority went thorough a competitive procurement process in September 2005 to select a new provider. On March 14, 2006 the Authority entered into a Franchise Agreement with West Valley Collection & Recycling, LLC (WVC&R), for the collection of solid waste, recyclable material, green waste, and construction and demolition debris, the transportation of such material to appropriate places of processing, recycling, composting, and /or disposal. This agreement will expire on February 28, 2014. The Authority has the option to extend the agreement not beyond February 28, 2017. 265 Hard-to-Service Rates One of the issues the Authority has addressed during the transition period is the increase in residential accounts designated hard-to- service (HTS). In the past, Green Valley used this designation for homes mostly in the hillsides and charged a higher rate-. Since the new service is automated, larger trucks are being used since residents are now classified as HTS due to this. WVC&R has defined HTS as any location that cannot be served by its standard sized collection vehicle and must instead be served by a smaller collection vehicle. These smaller vehicles are better able to turn around in constricted areas such as dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs, and to maneuver in narrow streets, alleys, and steep hillsides. They also minimize the potential for damage to overhanging tree limbs and wires. The Authority held two additional meetings to discuss the HTS issue. The first was held on June 21, 2007 (Attachment B). The Authority reviewed a report summarizing the history of HTS accounts in the West Valley cities and discussed alternatives approaches to the current rate system. Director Hobson explained that WVC&R had a total of 1,275 HTS customers in the West Valley Cities, 128 more HTS customers now than were reported by Green Valley. Director Hobson presented options that ranged from doing nothing to eliminating the HTS designation altogether. At that meeting the Board directed WVC&R to reduce the HTS rate by $2.00 per month retroactive to March 1, 2007 and asked the Executive Director Scott Hobson to evaluate the impact of eliminating the HTS rate on the regular residential collection rates in each jurisdiction. WVC&R has been working with individual residential customers to make physical arrangements, where possible, to allow for collection of their solid waste using the regular collection vehicle at the regular collection rate. At its second meeting held on August 21, 2007 Director Hobson presented the Authority with an update on the impact of eliminating the HTS rate. Directors Hobson’s recommendation is that the rate structure adopted by the Board stay in place, with this strategy, the additional cost of serving customers designated a HTS will continue to be paid for by those ratepayers. Based on the report and public testimony, the Board agreed to agendize the HTS issue for its regular meeting on November 1, 2007. Additionally, the Board determined that this issue should be taken back to each Board member’s respective city for discussion to consider whether to leave the existing rate structure in place or to spread the additional costs of serving HTS customers among all ratepayers. Information regarding rates, the number of customers, and rate change impacts are included in the attached reports prepared by the Agency’s Executive Director. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City’s Authority’s representative would not have heard any Council discussion or addition public input to help guide his vote at the November 1st Authority meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 266 N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: City’s Authority representative will take Council’s feedback to the next Authority’s Board meeting which is scheduled for November 1, 2007 meeting. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – June 21, 2007 West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board Memo: Hard-to Service Accounts and Rates Attachment B – August 14, 2007 West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board Memo: Hard-to Service Accounts and Rates 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285