Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-03-2019 City Council agenda packet
Saratoga City Council Agenda ~ July 3, 2019 ~ Page 1 of 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 3, 2019 6:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION Linda Callon Conference Room, City Hall | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Gov’t Code Section 54957) Title: City Attorney 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Civic Theater, Council Chambers | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 27, 2019. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public may address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on the Agenda. The law generally prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted on in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council Member. Any member of the public may speak on an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request that the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Special City Council Meeting June 11, 2019 and the Regular City Council Meeting on June 19, 2019. Saratoga City Council Agenda ~ July 3, 2019 ~ Page 2 of 5 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 06/18/2019 Period 12; and 06/25/2019 Period 12. 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended May 31, 2019 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended May 31, 2019. 1.4. Amendments to Temporary Off-Site Signs Regulations Recommended Action: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga Municipal Code related to temporary off-site signs in residential districts. 1.5. Resolution Authorizing Final Disposition of Certain City Records Recommended Action: Adopt resolution authorizing final disposition of certain city records. 1.6. Blaney Plaza Wireless Service Recommended Action: Authorize staff to remove wireless service connection at Blaney Plaza. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Items placed under this section of the Agenda are those defined by law as requiring a special notice and/or a public hearing or those called by the City Council on its own volition. Items requested for continuance are subject to the City Council's approval at the Council Meeting. 2.1. Approval of Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan and Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Recommended Action: Approve the Resolution Adopting the Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Plan. 3. GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. Village Design Guidelines Update Recommended Action: Review and approve the updated illustrations, format, and proposed text amendments to the Village Design Guidelines. 3.2. EIR Project Description for the Mountain Winery Annexation Project Recommended Action: Accept the project description of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Mountain Winery Annexation Project in Attachment A. Saratoga City Council Agenda ~ July 3, 2019 ~ Page 3 of 5 3.3. Annual Code Update for 2019 Recommended Action: Review the proposed cleanup amendments to the City Code and direct staff to prepare an ordinance implementing the amendments for consideration by the City Council. 3.4. Agreement with Granicus, Inc. Recommended Action: Move to authorize the City Manager to execute a three-year service agreement with Granicus, Inc. for streaming video services, Peak Agenda Management Software, and replacement of Granicus Encoding Appliance Hardware. 3.5. Report on Campaign Expenditure Limits Recommended Action: Receive report and direct staff accordingly. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Manny Cappello Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors Cities Association of Santa Clara County-City Selection Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee Council Finance Committee Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) West Valley Mayors and Managers West Valley Sanitation District Vice Mayor Howard Miller Council Finance Committee KSAR Community Access TV Board Saratoga Ministerial Association Saratoga Sister City Organization Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee VTA State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Council Member Rishi Kumar Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission West Valley Clean Water Program Authority West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee Public Art Committee Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable Saratoga Historical Foundation Saratoga City Council Agenda ~ July 3, 2019 ~ Page 4 of 5 Council Member Yan Zhao Association of Bay Area Governments Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Policy Advisory Board Hakone Foundation Board Public Art Committee Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga CITY COUNCIL ITEMS COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council was posted and available for review on June 27, 2019 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 27th day of June 2019 at Saratoga, California. Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. These materials are also posted on the City website. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408.868.1269. Notification 24 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] Saratoga City Council Agenda ~ July 3, 2019 ~ Page 5 of 5 07/03 6:00 p.m. Closed Session | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 07/17 Recess 08/07 Recess 08/21 5:00 p.m. Closed Session | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Youth in Government | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 09/04 5:00 p.m. Commission Interviews for Library & Parks | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 09/18 5:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Sister City | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Youth Commission | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 10/02 10/05 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with West Valley – Mission Community College Board of Trustees and Saratoga Schools and Boards at West Valley College | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 1:00 p.m. State of the City in Joan Pisani Community Center 10/16 5:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with KSAR | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Historical Foundation | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 11/06 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with State Senator Jim Beall Jr. | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 11/20 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Assembly Member Evan Low | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 12/04 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office |7:00 p.m. Council Reorganization and Regular Session 12/18 6:00 p.m. Study Session – Council Norms | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session Unless otherwise stated, Joint Meetings and Study Sessions begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Linda Callon Conference Room at Saratoga City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue and Regular Session begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2019 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk SUBJECT:City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the City Council minutes for the Special City Council Meeting June 11, 2019 and the Regular City Council Meeting on June 19, 2019. BACKGROUND: Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed for accuracy and approval. Following City Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to this report for Council review and approval. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Minutes for the Special City Council Meeting on June 11, 2019 Attachment B –Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on June 19, 2019 5 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 11, 2019 ~ Page 1 of 3 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2019 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Cappello called the Special Meeting with the City Council and the Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Saratoga Senior Center, S. Ku Hall at 19655 Allendale Avenue. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Manny Cappello, Vice Mayor Howard A. Miller, Council Members Rishi Kumar, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Yan Zhao PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT: Chair Sunil Ahuja, Vice Chair Razi Mohiuddin, Commissioners Leonard Almalech, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Anjali Kausar, Lucas Pastuszka, Tina Walia ABSENT:None ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Crystal Bothelio, Deputy City Manager Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Lauren Pettipiece, Public Information Officer Richard Taylor, City Attorney ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON -AGENDIZED ITEMS None AGENDA ITEMS: Study Session on The Mountain Winery Annexation Project Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report and stated that the purpose of the study session was to receive feedback from the City Council and Planning Commission on the proposed draft regulations to be adopted for the Mountain Winery Annexation, including a new Land Use Designation (general plan and zoning designation), the Pre-Zoning/Precise Plan, and the Development Agreement. The following people requested to speak: Martin spoke on creating a separate zoning code. Tom Sloan requested clarification on the City of Saratoga’s role related to Mountain Winery operations. 6 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 11, 2019 ~ Page 2 of 3 Bill Hirschman, part of the Mountain Winery ownership, spoke about the ownership’s desire to be annexed into the City of Saratoga. No one else requested to speak. Council and Planning Commission Consensus: The City Council and Planning Commission expressed a desire for: a Development Agreement with a longer term, preferably 25-40 years; a maximum building height of 35 feet with up to 10 feet of additional height allowed for architectural features that do not contain floor area; use of the proposed “Regional Commercial (RC)” Land Use and Zoning Designation, and for the maximum building coverage of the site to have a “not to exceed” acre amount. Additionally, staff was asked to reach out to the Saratoga Fire Protection District Commissioners on the proposed annexation. Council Member Kumar left the meeting. Study Session on Subterranean Structure Definition Community Development Director Debbie Pedro introduced this item and shared that the Planning Commission held study sessions on February 12 and March 12, 2019 on subterranean structures and recommends that the following criteria be incorporated in to the definition: Detached Covered on 3 sides 18” between top of structure and natural and/or finished grade, whichever is lower. 1,500 sq. ft. max (area of subterranean structure over 1,500 sq. ft. will count towards floor area) Daylighted portion should not exceed 15% of total perimeter of structure Not visible from public right of way Further, the Commission considered the differences between subterranean structures and basements and recommended the following: Keep subterranean structure and basement definitions separate Clarify that the area of a basement with floor area directly above (including porches enclosed on 3 sides) should be counted as basement The following people requested to speak: Martin raised objections to the Planning Commission proposed definition changes. Tom Sloan spoke in favor of some of the proposed changes and about impervious areas over the subterranean. No one else requested to speak. 7 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 11, 2019 ~ Page 3 of 3 Council Consensus: The City Council requested directed the Planning Commission remove the proposed criteria for subterranean structures to be detached and directed removal of the proposed maximum square footage. The City Council affirmed the Planning Commission’s recommended changes to the definition of a basement. The Planning Commission suggested this definition to be brought back to Council for approval at a later date: 15-06.685 -Subterranean Structures “Subterranean Structure” includes a cellar, bunker, or other attached or detached structure that (a) is not located beneath the building footprint of a structure; (b) does not encroach into setback areas; and (c) is located wholly underground below natural and/or finish grade, whichever is lower, except for required ingress/egress, lighting, and ventilation. (d) is not visible from the public right-of-way.The floor area of subterranean structures is not counted against a property’s maximum floor area and fifty percent of the floor area is counted against a property’s maximum site coverage; ADJOURNMENT Mayor Cappello adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk City of Saratoga 8 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 1 of 13 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING At 5:45 p.m., the City Council held a Closed Session in the Linda Callon Conference Room at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga. At 6:00 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation Board in the Linda Callon Conference Room at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga. Mayor Cappello called the Regular Session to order in the Civic Theater, Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Manny Cappello, Vice Mayor Howard A. Miller, Council Members Rishi Kumar, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Yan Zhao ABSENT:None ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, Deputy City Manager John Cherbone, Public Works Director Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Mary Furey, Finance & Administrative Services Director Michael Taylor, Recreation & Facilities Director Monica LaBossiere, Human Resources Manager Lauren Pettipiece, Public Information Officer Keith Weiner, Building Official REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA Deputy City Manager Crystal Bothelio reported that the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 13, 2019. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION Mayor Cappello announced that there is no report from the Closed Session. REPORT FROM JOINT MEETING Hakone Foundation Board Chair Ann Waltonsmith reported on the discussions in the Joint Meeting. 9 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 2 of 13 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Tom Moran, Saratoga Community Access Cable TV Foundation Chair, introduce new station manager, Kaitlan Zizzo. Kaitlan Zizzo, KSAR Station Manager, addressed the City Council. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Cappello announced West Valley Striders and Saratoga Movie Nights. CEREMONIAL ITEMS Proclamation Declaring June as LGBTQ Pride Month Recommended Action: Present the proclamation to BAYMEC Community Foundation Executive Director Ken Yeager. Mayor Cappello and the City Council presented the proclamation to BAYMEC Community Foundation Executive Director Ken Yeager. The City Council recognized retiring Recreation and Facilities Director Michael Taylor. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO PROCEED TO AGENDA ITEM 3.4 ADOPTION OF CITY OF SARATOGA EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN UPDATE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Appointment of Traffic Safety Commissioner & Oath of Office Recommended Action: Approve the attached resolution appointing one new member to the Traffic Safety Commission and changing the term of a current member of that Commission; and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. RESOLUTION 19-030 BERNALD/MILLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPOINTING ONE NEW MEMBER TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND CHANGING THE TERM OF A CURRENT MEMBER OF THAT COMMISSION; AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 10 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 3 of 13 1.CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on May 15, 2019 and the Special City Council Meeting June 5, 2019. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 2019 AND THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 5, 2019. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 05/14/2019 Period 11; 05/21/2019 Period 11; 05/28/2019 Period 11; 06/04/2019 Period 12; and 06/11/2019 Period 12. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 05/14/2019 PERIOD 11; 05/21/2019 PERIOD 11; 05/28/2019 PERIOD 11; 06/04/2019 PERIOD 12; AND 06/11/2019 PERIOD 12.MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended April 30, 2019 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended April 30, 2019. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2019. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.4. Resolution Amending the City’s Records Retention Schedule Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution amending the City’s Records Retention Schedule. RESOLUTION 19-031 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE.MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 11 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 4 of 13 1.5. Annual Approval of the City’s Investment Policy - for Fiscal Year 2019/20 Recommended Action: Review and approve the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2019/20. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.6. Resolution to Establish Property Tax Levy for Debt Service Payments on the Library General Obligation Bonds Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution to establish the property tax levy rate to provide for the Library General Obligation Bond's debt service payment at $.0040 per $100 of Assessed Valuation. RESOLUTION 19-032 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND'S DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT AT $.0040 PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUATION. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.7. Resolution to appoint City representatives to the PLAN JPA Board of Directors Recommended Action: Adopt resolution appointing City of Saratoga representatives to the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Association’s (PLAN JPA) Board of Directors. RESOLUTION 19-033 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY OF SARATOGA REPRESENTATIVES TO THE POOLED LIABILITY ASSURANCE NETWORK JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION’S (PLAN JPA) BOARD OF DIRECTORS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.8. Fiscal Year 2019/20 Gann Appropriation Limit Recommended Action: Review report and adopt resolution approving the Gann Appropriation Limit for FY 2019/20. RESOLUTION 19-034 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FY 2019/20. MOTION PASSED. AYES: 12 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 5 of 13 CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.9. Resolution to Establish Property Tax Levy for Debt Service Payments on the Arrowhead Community Facility District 2018 Bond Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution that sets the property tax levy rate for the Arrowhead Community Facility District’s 2018 Bond's debt service payment at $7,000 per parcel for the twenty-four (24) participating property owners. RESOLUTION 19-035 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION THAT SETS THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE FOR THE ARROWHEAD COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT’S 2018 BOND'S DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT AT $7,000 PER PARCEL FOR THE TWENTY-FOUR (24) PARTICIPATING PROPERTY OWNERS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.10. Council Resolution to Adopt Memorandum of Understanding for the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, Carpenters Forty Six Counties Conference Board and Their Affiliated Local Unions (“UNION”) July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2023 Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and adopt Council Resolution to Adopt Memorandum of Understanding for the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, Carpenters Forty Six Counties Conference Board and Their Affiliated Local Unions (“UNION”) July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2023. RESOLUTION 19-036 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION FOR THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CARPENTERS REGIONAL COUNCIL, CARPENTERS FORTY SIX COUNTIES CONFERENCE BOARD AND THEIR AFFILIATED LOCAL UNIONS (“UNION”) JULY 1, 2019 TO JUNE 30, 2023. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.11. Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Agreement Recommended Action: Approve a five (5) year contract renewal with the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. Mayor Cappello commented on this item. 13 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 6 of 13 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE A FIVE (5) YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH THE SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.12. Cotton, Shires and Associates Contract for Geotechnical Consulting services Recommended Action: Approve a three (3) year contract renewal with Cotton, Shires and Associates (CSA) for geotechnical consulting services and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE A THREE (3) YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES (CSA) FOR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.13. Resolution to Adopt a Program to Manage Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Containing Materials During Building Demolition. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution establishing a program to manage PCBs-containing building materials during demolition projects in accordance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) requirements. RESOLUTION 19-037 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM TO MANAGE PCBS-CONTAINING BUILDING MATERIALS DURING DEMOLITION PROJECTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL REGIONAL STORMWATER PERMIT (MRP) REQUIREMENTS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.14. Fiscal Year 2019/20 Operating & Capital Budget Adoption Recommended Action: Adopt resolution approving the Proposed FY 2019/20 Operating and Capital Budget, directing staff to incorporate within the final adopted budget any modifications related to late-breaking changes, minor corrections, carryforward appropriations, refined estimates, grant approvals, claim reimbursements, pass-through appropriations, or additional direction from Council upon adoption of the budget. Vice Mayor Miller commented on this item and the other finance-related agenda items. 14 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 7 of 13 RESOLUTION 19-038 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED FY 2019/20 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET, DIRECTING STAFF TO INCORPORATE WITHIN THE FINAL ADOPTED BUDGET ANY MODIFICATIONS RELATED TO LATE-BREAKING CHANGES, MINOR CORRECTIONS, CARRYFORWARD APPROPRIATIONS, REFINED ESTIMATES, GRANT APPROVALS, CLAIM REIMBURSEMENTS, PASS- THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS, OR ADDITIONAL DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL UPON ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.15. Citywide Traffic Signals, Lighted Crosswalks and Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Maintenance & Callout Repairs – Amendment to Contract Recommended Action: Move to accept an amendment to the contract for Citywide traffic signals, lighted crosswalks and rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) maintenance & callout repair services with Bear Electric Solutions for an additional 6 months to December 31, 2019. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, LIGHTED CROSSWALKS AND RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACONS (RRFBS) MAINTENANCE & CALLOUT REPAIR SERVICES WITH BEAR ELECTRIC SOLUTIONS FOR AN ADDITIONAL 6 MONTHS TO DECEMBER 31, 2019 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME.MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.16. Resolution Updating Unrepresented Employee’ Compensation & Terms of Employment Recommended Action: Move to adopt the Resolution approving compensation and terms of employment for Unrepresented Employees effective on July 1, 2019. RESOLUTION 19-039 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2019. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 15 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 8 of 13 2.PUBLIC HEARING 2.1. Weed and Brush Abatement Program Public Nuisance Declaration & Abatement Order Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing, receive public testimony, and consider requests to remove properties from the nuisance declaration and abatement order. Adopt the attached resolution declaring properties listed in the attached resolution to be a public nuisance; ordering abatement of properties to correct the public nuisance; and, authorizing the Santa Clara County Weed Abatement program to remove hazardous vegetation from these properties. Crystal Bothelio, Deputy City Manager, presented the staff report. Mayor Cappello opened the public hearing and invited public comment on the item. The following people requested to speak: Manu Chadha required removal of his property at 21398 Arrowhead Lane from the resolution declaring a public nuisance and ordering abatement. Moe Kumre, Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Manager, confirmed the properties compliance with Weed Abatement requirements based on photos shared with him at the meeting. No one else requested to speak. Mayor Cappello closed the public hearing for this item. RESOLUTION 19-040 MILLER/KUMAR MOVED TO ADOPT THE UPDATED RESOLUTION PROVIDED AS A SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENT DECLARING PROPERTIES LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION, EXCLUDING 21398 ARROWHEAD LANE, TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE; ORDERING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTIES TO CORRECT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE; AND, AUTHORIZING THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM TO REMOVE HAZARDOUS VEGETATION FROM THESE PROPERTIES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 2.2. Amendments to Temporary Off-Site Signs Regulations Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga Municipal Code related to temporary off-site signs in residential districts. 16 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 9 of 13 3. Direct staff to place the ordinance on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council. Debbie Pedro, Community Services Director, presented the staff report. Mayor Cappello opened the public hearing and invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. Mayor Cappello closed the public hearing for this item. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TEMPORARY OFF-SITE SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE THE ORDINANCE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR ADOPTION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 2.3. Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 - Public Hearing, Approval of Engineer’s Report, and Confirmation of Assessments for FY 19-20 Recommended Action: Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for FY 19-20. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. Mayor Cappello opened the public hearing and invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. Mayor Cappello closed the public hearing for this item. RESOLUTION 19-041 BERNALD/ZHAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS FOR FY 19-20.MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 17 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 10 of 13 3.GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. Letter of Interest for Adopting Reach Codes Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to sign a non-binding Letter of Interest to explore the adoption of Reach Codes proposed by Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Keith Weiner, Building Official, presented the staff report. Mayor Cappello invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A NON-BINDING LETTER OF INTEREST TO EXPLORE THE ADOPTION OF REACH CODES PROPOSED BY SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.2. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance Update Recommended Action: Receive the report and provide direction to staff. Debbie Pedro, Community Services Director, presented the staff report. Mayor Cappello invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ESTABLISH OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF SMALL CELL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ON EXISTING POLES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, INCLUDING AESTHETICS STANDARDS THAT HELP FACILITIES BLEND INTO THE BACKGROUND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.3. Approval of Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Mitigated Negative Declaration Recommended Action: Approve the Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan and Adopting that Plan and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. Mayor Cappello invited public comment on the item. 18 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 11 of 13 No one requested to speak. MILLER/ZHAO MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.4. Adoption of City of Saratoga Emergency Operations Plan Update Recommended Action: Approve a Resolution adopting the 2019 update to the City of Saratoga Emergency Operations Plan. Michael Taylor, Recreation & Facilities Director, presented the staff report. The following people requested to speak: No one requested to speak. RESOLUTION 19-042 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2019 UPDATE TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. After concluding this agenda item, the City Council returned to Ceremonial Items. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Manny Cappello Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors – at the last meeting, the Board received a presentation on the San Jose scooter program and SVCE Reach Codes. Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC)– at the last board meeting, there was discussion on the pricing structure of services provided in Los Gatos. Vice Mayor Howard Miller Council Finance Committee – the budget and the other financial items on this evening’s Council agenda were considered as part of the last Finance Committee meeting. Additionally, the Committee discussed development of a more structured annual work plan and requested an updated facilities audit insurance evaluation. KSAR Community Access TV Board – the Board met the new station manager at the last meeting. Saratoga Ministerial Association – the last meeting was hosted by SASCC. Saratoga Sister City Organization – the delegation from Muko will be visiting in October. There will be several activities on October 16 that the City Council is invited to and the Committee hopes the City Council can also join the delegation for a dinner on October 18. 19 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 12 of 13 Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors – Vice Mayor Miller attended a Board meeting, as well as meetings for several different committees. Vice Mayor Miller was selected as the Finance Committee Chair. The Board considered a request for funding from the Saratoga High School Bike to Future team for an electric car and discussed of the impacts of SB 237. There was also discussion of Reach Codes, succession plan, bonds for power contracts, and ransomware attacks. A comprehensive technology security audit is underway. Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee – the Board adopted its 2- year budget, the continuing decline of ridership, and the plans for a light rail extension to Eastridge. Additionally, the Grand Jury recently released a report on the governance of VTA. There may also be opportunities in the future to use the West Valley College transit center as a pilot location for a corporate shuttle program. Council Member Rishi Kumar West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority – the landfill contact subcommittee met to consider different proposals and will be presenting a recommendation to the Board. Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Public Art Committee – the Public Art Committee selected several different decorative bicycle rack designs and locations, which will hopefully be a delight to the City Council. Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable – Council Member Bernald has been part of weekly conference calls with Roundtable staff. The Roundtable’s next meeting will include an update from the FAA on their review of the Select Committee’s recommendations. Council Member Bernald sent a letter to the Mayor of Palo Alto asking to drop a proposed litigation against the FAA and encouraged the City to engage with the Roundtable. A letter was sent by Congressmembers Anna Eshoo, Jackie Spier, and Ro Khanna requesting information on airplane noise. Council Member Yan Zhao Association of Bay Area Governments – there was a meeting last month that Council Member Zhao was unable to attend. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Policy Advisory Board – the Board met in May. The last meeting was held in 2016. The Board adopted a prioritization plan. Public Art Committee – during the meeting last week, the Committee considered and selected new decorative bicycle rack designs for 4 locations. There was also continued discussion of opportunities for collaboration with West Valley College. Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga – during the last meeting, there was discussion of major upcoming events. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Miller requested a future agenda item to consider a new lease agreement with the Hakone Foundation. Council Member Bernald supported the request. 20 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ June 19, 2019 ~ Page 13 of 13 Vice Mayor Miller requested a future agenda item on development of a Climate Action Plan. Council Member Bernald supported the request. Vice Mayor Miller requested a future agenda item on garbage and recycling, including what is or is not accepted for curbside pickup and what can be placed in the recycling cart. Council Member Bernald supported the request. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:56 P.M. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR, BERNALD, ZHAO. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Crystal Bothelio, Deputy City Manager City of Saratoga 21 Gina Scott, Accounting Technician SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: BACKGROUND: The information listed below provides detail for City check runs. Checks issued for $20,000 or greater are listed separately as well as any checks that were voided during the time period. Fund information, by check run, is also provided in this report. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are Check Registers for: Date Ending Check # 06/18/19 138965 139007 43 602,730.03 06/18/19 06/11/19 138964 06/25/19 139008 139062 55 184,125.29 06/25/19 06/18/19 139007 Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater: Date Check # Issued to Dept.Amount 06/18/19 138989 PS 473,395.42 06/18/19 138997 OCM 25,000.00 06/18/19 139006 PW 32,295.00 06/25/19 139043 PW 44,650.00 06/25/19 39056 PW 60,186.50 Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period: AP Date Check #Amount 02/06/18 135240 50.00 ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services Starting Check #Type of Checks Date Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Fund Purpose 06/18/2019 Period 12; and 06/25/2019 Period 12. PREPARED BY: Ending Check # Law Enforcement CIP Grant/Street Repair SCC Fire Safe Council General General O'Grady Paving, Inc. Wattis Construction Co. CIP Grant/Street Repair Prior Check Register Checks Released Total Checks Amount Traffic Signals CIP Streets Projects 2018 PMP Project Traffic Patterns TDA-Article 3 Pathway SCC Office of the Sheriff Wildfire Prevention Void check Status Stale dated/never cashedChristina Kao Reason Issued to 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended May 31, 2019 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended May 31, 2019. BACKGROUND: California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035 designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer. This report is prepared to fulfill this requirement. The following attachments provide various financial transaction data 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 STATEMENT: Cash and Investments Balance by Fund As of May 31, 2019, the City had $477,773 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $27,331,506 on deposit with LAIF. The City Council’s adopted policy on the Working Capital Reserve Fund states that effective July 1, 2018: for cash flow purposes and to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $1,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of May 31, 2019 is $27,809,279 and exceeds the minimum limit required. City’s Current Financial Position In accordance with California government code section 53646 (b) (3), the City is financially well positioned and able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months. As of May 31, 2019, the City’s financial position (Assets $28.0M, Liabilities $3.6M and Fund Equity $24.4M) remains very strong and there are no issues in meeting financial obligations now or in the foreseeable future. Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank 477,773$ Deposit with LAIF 27,331,506$ Total Unrestricted Cash 27,809,279$ Cash Summary 32 The following Fund Balance schedule represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Unrestricted Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance – which represents the actual amount of funds available. Fund Balance Designations In accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, the components of fund balance are categorized as follows: “non-spendable fund balance”, resources that are inherently non-spendable from the vantage point of the current period; “restricted fund balance”, resources that are subject to enforceable legal restrictions; “committed fund balance”, resources whose use is constrained by limitations the government imposes upon itself through formal action at its highest level of decision making and remains binding unless removed in the same manner; “assigned fund balance”, resources that reflects a government’s intended use of resources, such intent would have to be established at either the highest level of decision making, by a body, or an official designated for that purpose; and “unassigned fund balance”, net resources in excess of what can properly be classified in one of the other four categories. Currently, the City’s fund balance reserves fall into one of the four spendable categories; restricted, committed, assigned, or unassigned fund balance. ATTACHMENTS A – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund under GASB 54 B – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project C – Change in Cash Balance by Month D – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates Total Unrestricted Cash 27,809,279$ Plus: Assets 230,123 Less: Liabilities (3,637,475) Ending Fund Balance 24,401,927$ Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance 33 ATTACHMENT A CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE UNDER GASB 54 * Prior year balances are unaudited and do not include budgeted transfers. These figures will be updated for future reports once Fund Description Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/18 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Apr Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 5/31/2019 General Fund Restricted Fund Balances: Environmental Services Reserve 213,182 - - - - - 213,182 Committed Fund Balances: Hillside Stability Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - 75,000 925,000 Assigned Fund Balances: Future Capital Replacement & Efficiency Project Reserve 1,349,623 - - - - - 1,349,623 Carryforwards Reserve 155,264 - - - - - 155,264 Facility Reserve 2,200,000 - - - - - 2,200,000 Unassigned Fund Balances: Working Capital Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Fiscal Stabilization Reserve 3,150,000 - - - - - 3,150,000 Compensated Absences Reserve 231,708 - - - - - 231,708 Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve (Pre YE distribution) 3,834,140 3,048,972 724,435 1,309,438 (75,866) 1,690,000 4,532,244 General Fund Total 13,133,917 3,048,972 724,435 1,309,438 (75,866) 1,765,000 13,757,021 Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting Districts 1,385,339 105,084 2,002 39,945 25,000 - 1,477,481 Debt Service Library Bond 997,756 (385,294) 4,372 - - - 616,833 Arrowhead Bond - 110,395 - - - - 110,395 Debt Service 997,756 (274,900) 4,372 - - - 727,228 Internal Service Fund Liability/Risk Management 553,907 32,688 - 7,724 - - 578,871 Workers Compensation 297,374 (17,406) - 3,393 - - 276,575 Office Support Fund 116,964 8,143 601 4,136 - - 121,572 Information Technology Services 364,263 98,303 1,128 34,330 - - 429,364 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 236,330 75,679 - 23,967 - - 288,042 Building Maintenance 515,786 212,051 1,232 64,558 - - 664,511 Vehicle & Equipment Replacement 517,948 (39,263) - 1,049 - - 477,636 Technology Replacement 423,730 114,937 - 38,883 - - 499,784 Facility FFE Replacement 420,814 (25,068) - - - - 395,746 Internal Service Fund Total 3,447,117 460,064 2,961 178,040 - - 3,732,102 Trust/Agency WVCWP Agency Fund - 672,695 - 39,427 - - 633,267 Capital Project Street Projects 2,175,561 (797,925) 80,875 299,656 962,000 36,565 2,084,289 Park and Trail Projects 702,319 (332,249) - 21,126 165,000 - 513,942 Facility Projects 136,103 (141,369) - 1,270 743,000 - 736,465 Administrative Projects 742,106 (173,004) 3,787 20,678 172,432 190,000 534,641 Tree Fund Projects 92,029 (10,032) - 371 - - 81,626 Park In-Lieu Projects 392,073 (89,543) - 4,127 - - 298,403 CIP Grant Street Projects (2,219,113) 1,410,969 - 38,776 - - (846,920) CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 12,809 421 (242) 179 - - 12,809 Gas Tax Fund Projects 1,503,137 (863,476) 94,130 74,221 - - 659,570 CIP Fund Total 3,537,025 (996,209) 178,550 460,405 2,042,432 226,565 4,074,826 Total City 22,501,153 3,015,708 912,320 2,027,255 1,991,565 1,991,565 24,401,927 34 the FY 2017/18 independent audit is completed. ATTACHMENT B FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT * Fund balance overdrawn due to Resolution No. 19-021, which authorized $250,000 of anticipated FY 2019/20 Streets Revenue to be used in FY 2018/19. CIP Funds/Projects Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/18 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Apr Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 5/31/2019 Street Projects Annual Road Improvements 329,218 (465,011) 80,875 232,356 130,000 - (157,273) * Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 110,404 (159,720) - 649 50,000 - 35 Highway 9 Safety Improvements - Phase IV - - - - - - - Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement 745,818 (53,499) - - - - 692,320 Big Basin Way Turn Around - (19,569) - - 132,000 112,432 - Fruitvale/Allendale Improvement - - - - 250,000 - 250,000 Annual Infrastructure Maintenance& Repair 64,279 (68,688) - 59,899 200,000 - 135,692 Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction - - - - - (75,866) 75,866 EL Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump 378,269 (970) - - - - 377,299 Storm Drain Capture Device 17,000 - - - - - 17,000 Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 44,000 - - - - - 44,000 Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements 48,650 (5,280) - - - - 43,370 Fourth Street Bridge Widening 99,837 - - - - - 99,837 Quito Road Bridge Replacement 157,830 - - - - - 157,830 Quito Road Bridge - ROW Acquisition 39,374 (6,882) - 120 - - 32,372 Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 42,137 (18,306) - 6,633 200,000 - 217,199 Underground Project 98,744 - - - - - 98,744 Total Street Projects 2,175,561 (797,925) 80,875 299,656 962,000 36,565 2,084,289 Parks & Trails Projects Park/Trail Repairs 23,357 (47,647) - - 100,000 - 75,710 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 89,613 (31,230) - 19,535 - - 38,848 Hakone Gardens Koi Pond Improvements 115,248 (180,244) - - 65,000 - 2 Joe's Trail at Saratoga/De Anza 33,997 - - - - - 33,997 Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 99,418 (51,809) - 1,534 - - 46,076 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 33,000 (1,416) - - - - 31,584 Saratoga to Sea Trail - Construction 307,686 (19,904) - 57 - - 287,725 Total Parks & Trails Projects 702,319 (332,249) - 21,126 165,000 - 513,942 Facility Projects CDD/PW Lobby Remodel - (5,790) - - 150,000 - 144,211 Civic Theater Improvements 70,690 17,987 - - - - 88,677 Community/Senior Center Electrical Panel Upgrade 65,414 (69,267) - 1,270 40,000 - 34,877 Community Center Stage Renovation - (90,000) - - 90,000 - - Bocce Ball Court - (4,550) - - 263,000 - 258,450 Senior Center Entrance Remodel - - - - 200,000 - 200,000 Library Building Exterior Maintenance - 5,000 - - - - 5,000 Library - Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Station - 5,250 - - - - 5,250 Total Facility Projects 136,103 (141,369) - 1,270 743,000 - 736,465 Administrative and Technology Projects Combined Document Imaging Project 12,263 (11,994) - - - - 269 City Website/Intranet 16,949 - - - - - 16,949 Development Technology 80,301 8,954 3,787 11,374 - - 81,667 Trak-It Software Upgrade 27,383 (27,103) - - - - 280 LLD Initiation Match Program 50,000 - - - - 25,000 25,000 Horseshoe Beautification 24,650 (2,025) - 225 - - 22,400 Citywide Accessibility Assessment - (9,062) - 5,351 122,432 - 108,019 General Plan Update 295,989 (110,683) - 2,578 - - 182,728 Village Specific Plan Update 80,158 (20,570) - 1,150 - - 58,438 Risk Management Project Funding 154,412 (521) - - 50,000 165,000 38,891 Total Administrative and Technology Projects 742,106 (173,004) 3,787 20,678 172,432 190,000 534,641 35 budgeted transfers. These figures will be updated for future reports once ATTACHMENT B (Cont.) FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT *The City expects to receive an additional $126,000 in Gas Tax Revenue by fiscal year-end, which will restore this negative fund balance. * Prior year balances are unaudited and do not include budgeted transfers. These figures will be updated for future reports CIP Funds/Projects Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/18 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Apr Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 5/31/2019 Tree Fund Projects Citywide Tree Planting Program 68,154 (10,282) - 371 - - 57,501 Tree Dedication Program 23,875 250 - - - - 24,125 Total Tree Fund Projects 92,029 (10,032) - 371 - - 81,626 CIP Grant Street Projects Highway 9 Safety Improvements - Phase IV (108,547) 110,417 - - - - 1,870 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (2,133,920) 1,263,379 - 37,850 - - (908,392) Citywide Signal Upgrade II (965) (15,283) - - - - (16,249) Saratoga Ave Sidewalk 23,512 26,749 - - - - 50,261 Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction - 1,834 - - - - 1,834 Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation - 3,141 - - - - 3,141 4th Street Bridge - 1,704 - - - - 1,704 Quito Bridge Replacement - 19,029 - - - - 19,029 Quito Road Bridges - ROW Acquisition 808 - - 926 - - (118) Total CIP Grant Street Projects (2,219,113) 1,410,969 - 38,776 - - (846,920) CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects Joe's Trail at Saratoga/De Anza 12,809 - - - - - 12,809 Saratoga to the Sea Trail - Design - 421 (242) 179 - - - Total CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 12,809 421 (242) 179 - - 12,809 Park In-Lieu Projects Park & Trail Safety Improvement - (20,792) - 919 43,000 - 21,289 Quito/Pollard Open Space - (7,691) - - 75,000 - 67,309 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure - - - - 120,000 - 120,000 Hakone Koi Pond Improvement 9,320 - - - - - 9,320 Quarry Pond WW Clearing - (46,182) - 3,208 50,000 - 610 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 88,689 (14,878) - - - - 73,811 Unallocated Park In-Lieu Funds 294,064 - - - (288,000) - 6,064 Total Park In-Lieu Projects 392,073 (89,543) - 4,127 - - 298,403 Gas Tax Fund Projects Annual Roadway Improvements 690,289 (843,949) 94,130 48,340 - - (107,869) * Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 685,014 (19,527) - 25,881 - - 639,605 Citywide Signal Upgrade II 99,759 - - - - - 99,759 Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs 20,990 - - - - - 20,990 Quito Road Bridges 7,085 - - - - - 7,085 Total Gas Tax Fund Projects 1,503,137 (863,476) 94,130 74,221 - - 659,570 Total CIP Funds 3,537,025 (996,209) 178,550 460,405 2,042,432 226,565 4,074,826 36 ATTACHMENT C CHANGE IN CASH BALANCE BY MONTH 37 ATTACHMENT D March June September December 1977 5.68 5.78 5.84 6.45 1978 6.97 7.35 7.86 8.32 1979 8.81 9.10 9.26 10.06 1980 11.11 11.54 10.01 10.47 1981 11.23 11.68 12.40 11.91 1982 11.82 11.99 11.74 10.71 1983 9.87 9.64 10.04 10.18 1984 10.32 10.88 11.53 11.41 1985 10.32 9.98 9.54 9.43 1986 9.09 8.39 7.81 7.48 1987 7.24 7.21 7.54 7.97 1988 8.01 7.87 8.20 8.45 1989 8.76 9.13 8.87 8.68 1990 8.52 8.50 8.39 8.27 1991 7.97 7.38 7.00 6.52 1992 5.87 5.45 4.97 4.67 1993 4.64 4.51 4.44 4.36 1994 4.25 4.45 4.96 5.37 1995 5.76 5.98 5.89 5.76 1996 5.62 5.52 5.57 5.58 1997 5.56 5.63 5.68 5.71 1998 5.70 5.66 5.64 5.46 1999 5.19 5.08 5.21 5.49 2000 5.80 6.18 6.47 6.52 2001 6.16 5.32 4.47 3.52 2002 2.96 2.75 2.63 2.31 2003 1.98 1.77 1.63 1.56 2004 1.47 1.44 1.67 2.00 2005 2.38 2.85 3.18 3.63 2006 4.03 4.53 4.93 5.11 2007 5.17 5.23 5.24 4.96 2008 4.18 3.11 2.77 2.54 2009 1.91 1.51 0.90 0.60 2010 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.46 2011 0.51 0.48 0.38 0.38 2012 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.32 2013 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.26 2014 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.25 2015 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.37 2016 0.46 0.55 0.60 0.68 2017 0.78 0.92 1.07 1.20 2018 1.51 1.90 2.16 2.40 2019 2.55 Quarterly Apportionment Rates Local Agency Investment Fund 38 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:Community Development Department PREPARED BY:Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Amendments to Temporary Off-Site Signs Regulations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code related to temporary off-site signs in residential districts. BACKGROUND: On June 19, 2019, the City Council introduced amendments to Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code limiting temporary off-site signs in residential districts and directed staff to place the ordinance on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within 15 days after its adoption. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A -Ordinance 39 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE CITY CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY OFF-SITE SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga finds that: 1.On March 6, 2019, the Saratoga City Council directed staff to amend Section 15-30.135 of the City Code to limit temporary off-site signs in residential districts. 2.The amendment will achieve the objective of preventing sign clutter and preserving the residential character and general welfare of the community. 3.On May 8, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly notice public hearing and considered the draft Ordinance, supporting documents, the Staff Report, CEQA exemption, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing, and recommended that the City Council find that the proposed amendments to the City Code comply with the State legislation described above and are consistent with the City of Saratoga General Plan and that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Temporary Off-Site Signs Ordinance; 4.The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on June 19, 2019, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. The City Council adopted this ordinance at a duly noticed public meeting on July 3, 2019. The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows: Section 1.Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A. Section 2.California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), this action to update the City Code regarding Temporary Off-Site Signs is exempt from CEQA. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment, and that where, as here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no reasonable possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. 40 Section 3.Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, sentence, clause, and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 4.Publication. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly noticed public hearing, the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held onJune 19, 2019, and was adopted by the following vote on July 3, 2019. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ___________________________________ E. Manny Capello MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ATTEST: ______________________________________Date: ______________________________ Debbie Bretschneider CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________Date: ______________________________ Richard Taylor CITY ATTORNEY 41 Exhibit A – An Ordinance Adopting Amendments to the City Code Related to Temporary Off-Site Signs The sections of the Saratoga City Code as set forth below are amended or adopted as follows: Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code. Amendments to Article 15-30 – SIGNS 15-30.135 – Temporary off-site signs in residential districts. In addition to other signs allowed pursuant to this Article, the following signs are allowed on lots in residential districts without a permit: Temporary off-site signs are only allowed in a residential zoning district, provided that: (1) No sign shall be located in the public right of way including but not limited to any median, street, travel lane, sidewalk, or landscape/parkway strip located between a sidewalk and street. (2) No more than one temporary off-site sign is allowed per residential lot. (3) The sign shall be located in the front yard. (4) The property owner has given permission for the sign placement. (5) The sign shall not exceed two square feet in area and three feet in height. (6) No sign shall include balloons, ribbons, streamers, lighting, or other attention getting device. 1129265.1 42 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk SUBJECT:Resolution Authorizing Final Disposition of Certain City Records RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution authorizing final disposition of certain city records. BACKGROUND: On June 19, 2019, the City Council approved an update to the City’s Records Retention Schedule. In accordance with the schedule, staff and the City Attorney review archived documents to determine those that are to be destroyed pursuant to the Schedule and can, therefore, be shredded.In compliance with State law, processing expired records for destruction is a multi-step process: 1.Staff in each department identifies records for which the retention period has expired in accordance with the approved records retention schedule. Records in each box are reviewed to make sure the records are eligible for destruction. 2.Department directors review and approve the list of records to be destroyed in their departments. 3.The City Clerk and City Attorney review and approve a combined list of all expired records. 4.The list of records is presented to the City Council along with a resolution authorizing the shredding of listed documents. Records may not be shredded without the authorization of the City Council and the City Attorney. At this time, staff has identified 15 boxes of expired records and email files and is requesting authorization from the Council to proceed with disposition of these documents. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Consistent with the City’s standard policy, the records will be held for seven days for review pursuant to the Public Records Act.If no request for review is submitted, the records will be promptly destroyed unless the City Attorney determines that they should be retained and destroyed at a later date per direction from the City Attorney.If a request for review is submitted, the records will be destroyed between 20 and 30 days after they have been made available for review.43 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Resolution Authorizing the Final Disposition of Certain City Records Attachment B - List of Records Proposed for Final Disposition 44 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 et seq. authorizes City department heads to destroy certain records, documents, instruments, books or paper after the same are no longer required with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: 1.Department heads are hereby authorized to have destroyed those certain documents, instruments, books or paper (collectively, “Records”) under their charge as described in Exhibit ‘A. 2.The Records described in Exhibit ‘A shall be held for seven days for review pursuant to the Public Records Act prior to destruction. If no request for review is submitted within that time, they shall be promptly destroyed. If a request for review is submitted, the Records shall be destroyed not less than twenty days and not more than thirty days after the records have been made available for review. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City Attorney determines that any Records should be retained for any reason those Records shall be retained and destroyed at a later date determined by the City Attorney. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 3rd day of July 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: E. Manny Cappello, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk 45 July 2019 Records Authorized for Destruction by Council and City Attorney Retention Guide AU = Audit, CL =Closure, CU = Current Year, T = Terminated Number of Box Department Description of Documents Retention date Retention Record Series N/A IT Emails before June 30, 2017, except for individuals on Legal Hold 6/30/2019 Current year +2 emails CMO1 City clerk Median Banner applications + Commissioner applications 2013-2016 12/31/2018 Closed +2 Median Banner applications CMO2 City clerk 1992 Bids & proposals on Library construction 1/1/2000 Audit +5 Bids & Proposals, Successful & Unsuccessful 82A City clerk Correspondance 1990 + Purchase orders 1995 & 2000 related to FEMA 1/1/2006 Audit+4 Purchase orders 129C City clerk 2001-2004 Silicon valley Animal Control Authority Minutes and agendas 1/1/2007 Current year+2 Joint Powers Agency, materials 130C Risk Management 1990-1995 ABAG Plans, Claim Files, Risk Management Reports 1/1/2005 Closed +5 Risk Management 131A City clerk 1968-2004 Oaths of Office, 2000-2005 Council agendas/staff reports 1/1/2010 Term +6, Current year +2 Clerk/Oath of Office/agendas Attorney 1 Attorney 1988 Attorney files 1/1/1997 Closed +7 Case records, Informal Attorney 2 Attorney 1989 attorney files 1/1/1997 Closed +7 Case records, Informal Attorney 3 Attorney 1986 ABAG insurance documents 1/1/1995 Closed +5 Risk Management Attorney 4 Attorney 1980-1990 Attorney correspondance 1/1/1998 Closed +7 Case records, Informal Attorney 5 Attorney 1980-1989 attorney correspondance 1/1/1998 Closed +7 Case records, Informal 172 City clerk 1997-2005 Contracts on Cable TV 1/1/2016 Current year +10 Contracts 5058 PW 2011-2016 oversize load permits, 2009 Pavement Management Bid submittals 1/1/2019 Current year +2 Permits, oversize loads 5083 Recreation Recreation Class & Camp Registrations 2016 12/31/2018 Current year +2 Class rosters 46 CITY ATTORNEY CONSENTS TO DESTRUCTION OF THE RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, INSTRUMENTS, BOOKS OR PAPER DESCRIBED ABOVE: __________________ ____________ Richard Taylor Date City Attorney 47 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services PREPARED BY:Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director, SUBJECT:Blaney Plaza Wireless Service RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize staff to remove wireless service connection at Blaney Plaza. BACKGROUND: In 2014, prior to the now standard practice of business-provided free wireless service to customers and widespread cell service data plans, Council directed staff to install free wireless service in Blaney Plaza. The intent was to provide visitors to the Village with the ability to easily access their email and internet, thereby providing an enhancement to their visit in the Village. Additionally, at that time, a Farmers Market was located next to Blaney Plaza and this service was again expected to enhance the overall experience. Subsequently,technology services have greatly expanded and access to free wireless services is now commonly offered by businesses (such as the Starbucks adjacent to Blaney Plaza). However, free wireless is now known as a risky activity due to the danger of a user’s system being hacked into while connected, resulting in less and less use by patrons. Additionally, the Farmers Market is no longer located next to Blaney Plaza. A recent usage report shows that usage is limited to an average of 8 connections per day. Due to the upcoming need to replace the firewall ($600) and enter into annual service agreements ($2,350 per year), staff requested the Finance Committee to evaluate whether the City should continue to provide free wireless service at Blaney Plaza. The Finance Committee determined that in light of the limited number of users, the availability of other free wireless services, and the cost to continue this service, that staff bring this matter to Council and request permission to remove the service. 48 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:Public Works PREPARED BY:Emma Burkhalter, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Approval of Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan and Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Resolution Adopting the Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Plan. BACKGROUND: Project Description The Project would construct an approximately 3 mile public recreational trail connection from Saratoga Quarry Park to Sanborn County Park in western Santa Clara County (“connector trail”) or (“trail”). The proposed trail would occur on City-owned and privately-owned land within the project site. The trail is envisioned to eventually connect to existing County trails within Sanborn County Park and to serve as part of a trail system linking trails in Saratoga to the Skyline-to-the- Sea Trail to form a Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail. The Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail is included as a proposed trail in the City of Saratoga General Plan in Circulation and Scenic Highway Element and also in Open Space and Conservation Element. The proposed alignment for the trail was selected based on a feasibility study conducted in May 2015 and based on input from City staff, the City’s Trails Advisory Committee, the affected private landowner (San Jose Water Company), the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department staff, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District staff. The proposed trail would emphasize the Project site’s natural features, connections to adjacent open space, and opportunities for hiking and horse-back riding. Environmental Review In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were prepared and circulated for public review and comments from May 17, 2019 to June 17, 2019. The City provided notice of the public comment period through an advertisement in the San Jose Mercury News, through a mailing to residents in the vicinity of the project,through the City’s website, and through a posted notice at Quarry Park. In addition, the IS/MND was made available to the public in hard 49 copy at the City offices and electronically at the City’s website. The City received one public comment on the IS/MND concerning evaluation of Tribal Cultural Resources and consultation with area tribes and revised the document accordingly. The additional analysis did not identify any significant impacts. The City Council’s public hearing on the project was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Saratoga to Sanborn Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Attachment A1 – IS/MND Attachments Attachment B – Resolution for Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment B1 – Exhibit “A” – Trail Plan Attachment C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1134394.1 50 City of Saratoga Quarry Park – Sanborn Connector Trail Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Revised Draft - June 25 2019 State Clearinghouse No. #XXXX-XX-XXXX 51 i Quarry Park – Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST.......................................................................................... 20 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...................................... 21 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................... 23 I. AESTHETICS.............................................................................................. 23 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................. 25 III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................ 27 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 31 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 46 VI. ENERGY ..................................................................................................... 48 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................ 49 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................ 53 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................... 54 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................. 57 XI. LAND USE .................................................................................................. 61 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 63 XIII. NOISE .......................................................................................................... 64 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................ 70 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................... 71 XVI. RECREATION ............................................................................................ 72 XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................ 73 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................... 75 XIX. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 77 XX. WILDFIRE .................................................................................................. 79 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................... 81 Attachments Attachment A: Biological Resources Background Report Attachment B: Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Study List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ..........................................................................................5 Figure 2 Project Vicinity A ..........................................................................................6 Figure 3 Project Vicinity B ..........................................................................................7 Figure 4 Circulation.................................................................................................... 17 52 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would construct an approximately 3.0 mile public recreational trail connection from Saratoga Quarry Park to Sanborn County Park in western Santa Clara County (“connector trail”) or (“trail”). The proposed Project would occur on City-owned and privately-owned land within the project site. See Figure 1. The trail is envisioned to eventually connect to existing County trails within Sanborn County Park and to serve as part of a trail system linking trails in Saratoga to the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail to form a Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail. The Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail is included as a proposed trail in the City of Saratoga General Plan in Circulation and Scenic Highway Element and also in Open Space and Conservation Element. The proposed alignment for the trail was selected based on a feasibility study conducted in May 2015 and based on input from City staff, the City’s Trails Advisory Committee, the San Jose Water Company, the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department staff, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District staff. The trail would be accessible to the public for pedestrian use and horseback riding. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzes a trail to be constructed along the preliminary alignment as flagged and mapped. A qualified specialist in trail design and construction, with input from a licensed engineering geologist and civil engineer as needed, will delineate the final trail alignment, prepare construction documents, and oversee trail construction. This document provides an assessment of the potential environmental impacts caused by the physical changes resulting from the Project. A. Regional and Local Setting The Project area is located in western Santa Clara County approximately 50 miles south of San Francisco and 27 miles east of the City of Santa Cruz (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Project Vicinity). The Project area is located on the south side of Saratoga Creek and Highway 9, primarily within the lower Congress Springs Creek drainage (Figure 2). (Congress Springs Creek is a tributary to Saratoga Creek.) The Project area would be implemented primarily on Assessor Parcel Number 503-73-003 (SJWC), with segments crossing through 517-04-011, 517-04-060, 517-04-061, 517-32- 001, and 503-48-045 and is bordered on the north by San Jose Water Company lands and California State Route (SR) 9, to the east by Saratoga’s Quarry Park, to the south by San Jose Water Company lands, and to the west by privately held parcels and Sanborn County Park. B. Existing Site Character The project area is located on the northern flank of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The area is characterized by steep mountainous terrain dissected by narrow, steep sided V-shaped ravines and stream valleys. Natural slopes range from less than 20 percent gradient along gently sloping ridgetops and midslope benches to more than 80 percent along local steep 53 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 2 streamside slopes and steep headwall swales. Hillsides are underlain by a series of large- scale deep-seated bedrock landslides, several of which appear periodically active. The steep slopes that characterize much of the area are also subject to shallow debris slide and debris flow landslide processes. Small debris fans are found at the mouths of many of the steep drainages. The area is geologically active, dominated by the northwest-southeast trending San Andreas Fault Zone located about 1.5 miles southwest of the project area. Broad alluvial sediments are found along the valley bottoms of Congress Springs and Saratoga Creeks. Elevations range from 620 feet along Saratoga Creek to over 2,000 feet along the ridge top. Several streams that may be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) traverse the project area. Vegetation in the project area is primarily oak woodlands and chaparral local conifer forest found locally along the valley bottoms of the larger watercourses. The majority of the property is undeveloped although portions of the trail at each terminus would be located along developed trails and roads. C. Policy Setting The Project would be undertaken by the City of Saratoga as part of a collaborative effort with Santa Clara County and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 1. County Santa Clara County General Plan and County of Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance Code The Project site is designated as Hillsides in the County General Plan and zoned HS Hillside in the County Zoning Code. Under Section 2.20.010(C) of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the Hillside district, also known as the HS district, is to preserve mountainous lands unplanned or unsuited for urban development primarily in open space and to promote those uses which support and enhance a rural character, which protect and promote wise use of natural resources, and which avoid the risks imposed by natural hazards found in these areas. Within the HS District, permitted uses include agriculture and grazing, very low- density residential use, low density, low intensity recreation, mineral and other resource extraction, and land in its natural state. The Project does not require any approvals from Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan The Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan (“Trails Master Plan”) identifies a proposed connection from Saratoga to County parklands via private lands. 54 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 3 The Trails Master Plan provides design and management guidelines for construction of new trails implemented by the County. Santa Clara Valley Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams User Manual In 2006, the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, made up of representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, 15 cities, the county, business, agriculture, streamside property owner and environmental interests adopted the Guidelines & Standards for Land Use near Streams. The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative published a User Manual containing tools, standards, and procedures for the protection of streams and streamside resources in the county. The guidelines and standards fall within the following activity headings: ♦ Riparian Corridor Protection ♦ Bank Stability/Streambed Conditions ♦ Encroachments between the Top of Bank ♦ Erosion Prevention and Repair ♦ Grading ♦ Outfalls, Pump Stations, and Site Drainage ♦ Channelization ♦ Utility Encroachments ♦ Trail Construction ♦ Septic Systems ♦ Trash Control and Removal ♦ Protection of Water Quality ♦ Groundwater Protection ♦ Flood Protection In 2007, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution approving the Guidelines & Standards as a document to be used during the design and construction of County projects. These Guidelines and Standards apply only to County projects.1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) is a non-enterprise special district that serves parts of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz counties in order to form a continuous greenbelt of permanently preserved open space by linking public parklands. As a member of Bay Area Open Space Council, the MROSD participates in cooperative efforts, including Bay Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail, and Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail, which are regional Bay Area trails running across the District’s jurisdiction. The MROSD’s basic policy document includes goals and policies that relate to open space 1 Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan at 59. 55 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 4 land preservation and management, inter-agency relationships, and public involvement. MROSD’s Saratoga Gap and Fremont Older Open Space Preserves are located in the vicinity of Saratoga. Funding for this Project is a shared effort between the City and MROSD, and primarily comes from MROSD’s Measure AA bond approved by voters in 2014, in Portfolio #18: South Bay Foothills: Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor of the Measure AA bond ordinance, which includes $1.365 million to “protect wildlife corridor along Highway 9” and “connect trail to Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Skyline-to-Sea Trail.” MROSD has adopted District Trail Construction and Maintenance Guidelines (“MROSD Guidelines,” attached as Appendix A) which call for trail design practices such as minimizing erosion, incorporating proper and efficient runoff, designing stream crossings to minimize disturbance and avoid flood elevations, and to implement construction to minimize impacts to sensitive natural resources. Per the Partnership Agreement between the City and MROSD, executed in 2018, the MROSD Guidelines will be used in designing and building the Project. 56 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 5 Figure 1 Regional Location 57 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 6 Figure 2 Project Vicinity A 58 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 7 Figure 3 Project Vicinity B 59 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 8 2. City a. City Of Saratoga General Plan and Land Use Element The City General Plan designates the project area, which is located primarily within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) but not the city limits, as Hillside Open Space (OS-H). Because these lands are outside the City limits, the County planning and zoning laws would apply. The OS-H designation would apply should the area ever be annexed to the City. The Hillside Open Space designation allows uses which support and enhance a rural character, promote the wise use of natural resources and avoid natural hazards. Uses include agriculture, mineral extraction, parks and low intensity recreational facilities, land in its natural state, wildlife refuges and very low intensity residential development. A small portion of the project area is located within the City limits in the Quarry Park. This land is designated Open Space-Outdoor Recreation. That designation applies to City or County parks Only recreational facilities (i.e. playground equipment, recreational courts, etc.), structures necessary to support the parks or structures of particular historic value are permitted in these areas. i. Open Space and Conservation Element The Open Space and Conservation Element document describes the existing parks and open space resources in the City of Saratoga. Additionally, it describes the City’s goal to maintain and increase the amount of parkland and recreational areas according to its park standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The Open Space and Conservation Element also includes a map of existing trail easements and proposed trails, which includes a conceptual trail connecting Quarry Park to Sanborn County Park. Open Space and Conservation Element, Exhibit OSC-2, at p. 10. ii. Circulation and Scenic Highway Element The City of Saratoga’s Circulation and Scenic Highway Element includes policies to: (1) improve transportation options for multiple users; (2) promote a healthy and active community for residents by providing alternative transportation opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians; and (3) have the City be a responsible partner in developing regional transportation solutions. The Circulation Element supports implementation of trails to link the population centers in Saratoga to the scenic and open space resources available in the Santa Cruz Mountains. b. Saratoga Municipal Code i. Zoning (Chapter 15) The Zoning chapter of the Saratoga Municipal Code serves to implement the General Plan designations described above. It defines zones and contains the zoning map and development standards for all zones. The Project site is pre-zoned R-OS (Residential 60 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 9 Open Space). According to the Section 15-02.010, the purpose of the R-OS zone is “[t]o preserve hillside and mountainous land in its natural condition through the establishment of dedicated open space areas, and through environmentally sensitive low density residential use” and “[t]o promote those uses which support and enhance a rural character and preserve important resources such as forests, natural vegetation, watersheds, animal habitat, scenic beauty, recreational areas, open space and public access thereto.” One of the permitted uses within the R-OS zone is related to public park uses, which allows for public parks, trails, and open space. As with the OS-H designation, these rules would apply to the land currently outside the City limits in the event of annexation. ii. Parks and Recreation (Chapter 11) The Park and Recreation chapter of Saratoga’s Municipal Code defines acceptable and prohibited activities within City parks and recreational facilities. The chapter sets forth general regulations and permit requirements for special recreation activities, including sports and group uses. In order to preserve and prevent incidents of fire and loss of parkland, the chapter specifically states that use of tobacco is prohibited in recreational areas, which are defined as any outdoor area that is open to the public for recreational purposes. This includes parks and trails. c. Quarry Park Master Plan The Quarry Park Master Plan prepared in 2014 provides a plan and policies to guide development of the City’s Quarry Park. The Master Plan includes renovation of Quarry Park’s hiking trails to become part of a greater regional trail network and specifically part of the future Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail (currently the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail). The Master Plan envisioned a future trail from the Quarry Park site to connect west through the San Jose Water Company property to the trails at Sanborn County Park, and ultimately to the existing Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail. The Project will be designed, built, and operated in accord with all applicable Quarry Park Master Plan policies. D. Project Characteristics 1. Trails. As described above, implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of a public multi-use trail extending from Quarry Park, west through the San Jose Water Company property and end at a road on private property. Ultimately, the goal is for the project connect to new and existing trails in Sanborn County Park leading to the existing Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail. The proposed project connector trail would be developed as a multi-use facility, emphasizing the Project site’s natural features, connections to adjacent open space, and opportunities for hiking and horse-back riding. The Project would provide approximately 2.7 miles of new trail. The remainder of the connector trail (which would traverse an existing unpaved road that provides the main access to a private winery) is currently being constructed. Length of trail by type and property is summarized in the table below. 61 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 10 PROPERTY TRAIL TYPE TOTAL LENGTH New Trail Abandoned dirt road Paved road (Winery Access) San Jose Water Company 2.7 0.3 0.22 3.22 Winery (private) 0 0 0.12 0.12 Sanborn County Park 0 0 0.03 0.03 Quarry Park 0.05 0 0 0.05 TOTAL LENGTH (miles) 2.7 .3 0.37 3.37 The proposed project would include a 4- to 5-foot-wide compacted earth trail for the newly constructed portion of the trail in the wooded area. The proposed trail would be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with all applicable Quarry Park Master Plan policies and consistent with the guidelines outlined in the MROSD’s District Trail Construction and Maintenance Guidelines. The trail design will: conform to and incorporate the natural terrain; avoid long, straight reaches; incorporate out-slopes of 3-5 percent; incorporate frequent reverse grade dips; and incorporate climbing turns at switchbacks to the extent feasible. The approximate trail grade will range between 0 and 15 percent with several short steeper segments. The average trail grade is expected to be about 8% with an overall elevation gain of approximately 625 feet. Construction of the trail would include implementation of small wood retaining walls, four clear span bridges at stream crossings (described in more detail below), and replanting of trees and revegetation along the trail as needed in conformance with resource agency requirements. The trail would be inspected by City staff before winter rains and as needed throughout the year to evaluate maintenance needs. Trail design and construction will utilize the following techniques, in accordance with the detailed specifications in the Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation for the Project (attached as Appendix B), to stabilize the slope, provide a safe and accessible travel path, and optimize views: Partial Bench Construction. Most of the trail, approximately 10,275 feet, will be partial bench cut construction, which uses excavated soil from the hillside to construct the outer edge of the trail. This approach balances cut and fill within the trail section and is typically applied where slope gradients are less than 50%. Cut Bench Construction. Approximately 2,305 linear feet of trail will be full cut bench construction. A cut bench design cuts the full width of the trail into the hillside with excess soil being spread onsite below the trail. Structural fill is added to the trail tread at a depth no greater than six inches. This approach is typically applied where slope gradients are greater than 50%. Because of the steeper slopes it generally requires more excavation and leaves a greater backslope than partial bench construction but for comparative slopes creates a trail bed that is more durable and requires less maintenance. Fill Bench Construction. Approximately 230 linear feet of trail will be fill bench construction. Fill bench construction includes the import of compacted fill with no cut to create the trail thread. 62 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 11 Rock Fill Bench Construction. Approximately 365 linear feet of trail will be rock fill bench construction. Rock fill construction is similar to partial and fill bench construction; however, rock is used for fill instead of soil. Trail construction would begin at the eastern terminus at Quarry Park and end at the boundary of the private winery at the western boundary of the Project site. Extension of the trail is envisioned to connect with the County easement over the existing service road that traverses the winery, cross into Sanborn County Park lands, back through San Jose Water Company lands and connect to the Sanborn County Park boundary. Access to the proposed connector trail would be from Quarry Park on the east and from Sanborn County Park on the west. The existing trails in Sanborn County Park in the vicinity of the western terminus of the connector are currently being upgraded by the County as a separate project. Construction and public use of the 3.22 miles of trail located on San Jose Water Company property will occur pursuant to a public trail easement. The easement grants the City of Saratoga the right to design, locate, relocate, construct, reconstruct, repair, preserve, maintain, and replace, the trail and trail improvements within the easement area. The easement conditions the final designation of the trail alignment on the City’s completion of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The easement permits the public to use the trail for walking, jogging, horseback riding, and other related recreational uses. Due to steep grades and other geographic constraints, the majority of the proposed trail would not be ADA accessible. Trail accessibility information, would be posted on all trail signage as well as Quarry Park’s circulation map and Sanborn County Park’s circulation map. 2. Retaining Walls and Switchbacks The trail will also consist of 955 linear feet of low retaining walls, composed of either stacked rock, wood lag, wood crib, or Allen blocks. It is anticipated that the retaining walls will be between one and two and a half feet tall and will be used to support trail prism, bring the grade to a desired percentage, and keep people on the trail. Additional short retaining walls may be required based on conditions encountered during construct. The Project includes 18 switchbacks, or climbing turns. Of these, seven are anticipated to have downslope reinforcement of the trail tread. Two switchbacks are anticipated to utilize rock or Allen block supports and five will utilize rock filled buttress; however, the construction technique may vary based on the contractor’s preferred approach. 63 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 12 3. Trail Bridges In addition to the trail work, there would be four new trail bridges crossing intermittent and ephemeral watercourses. Their locations are identified in Figure 3. BRIDGE 1: Anticipated dimensions for Bridge 1 are 35 feet long by 6 feet wide. Bridge 1 would be a steel stringer bridge with wood deck and railing and concrete abutments and would be constructed in place. BRIDGE 2: Anticipated dimensions for Bridge 2 are 70 feet long by 6 feet wide and it would be a prefabricated steel or fiberglass truss and concrete abutments. BRIDGE 3: Anticipated dimensions for Bridge 3 are 50 feet long by 6 feet wide. Bridge 3 would be a steel stringer bridge with wood deck and railing and concrete abutments and it would be constructed in place. BRIDGE 4: Anticipated dimensions for Bridge 4 are 20 feet long by 6 feet wide. Bridge 4 would be a glulam or steel stringer bridge with wood deck and railing and concrete abutments. It would be constructed in place. Trail bridge abutments have been designed to avoid environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible. 4. Furnishings and Signage The Project would include a small trailhead with a bench, trail map sign, and fence at the Saratoga Quarry Park. There would also be approximately eight benches along the trail route at strategic locations for rest stops or viewpoints. Wayfinding signs would be located at the intersection between the new trail construction and converted old road and at the private winery roadway that connects to Congress Springs Road. 5. Ground Preparation and Vegetation Removal The proposed Project’s disturbed area covers approximately six acres, including area for the trail, as well as construction staging and material movement. When available, rocks present along the trail will be utilized in construction of retaining walls, downslope reinforcement, and rock fill bench trail construction. It is estimated that 2,000 cubic yards of rock and soil will be excavated from the site and used as fill in designated areas along the trail and approximately 100 cubic yards of rock will be imported. However, excavation volumes may differ based on conditions encountered during crossing and fill removal. The Project requires clearing and grubbing of the trail alignment area and removal of some trees as described below: 64 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 13 Approximate diameter at breast height (dbh) Number of trees to be removed 8” 21 10” 25 12” 14 16” 1 18” 5 20” 1 32” (failing health) 1 The trees identified for removal would be left in place. In addition, the Project would require removal of approximately 5 to 12 wood rat nests that may be impacted by trail construction. 6. Construction. Construction of the proposed trail would be undertaken from Quarry Park and would extend over a period of 18 - 24 months. Construction is anticipated to take place during the winter, which would shorten the construction window and minimize active construction when vegetation, including poison oak, is most dense. Erosion control strategies for managing construction during the winter, rainy months are described in section below. The following equipment is anticipated to be used for construction: mini- excavator(s), mini dozer, motorized tote/wheelbarrow, ATV with trailer, chainsaw, hand tools, portable mixer, and tree rigging. Some materials for construction of the bridges may need to be flown in via helicopter. If helicopter use is necessary, a landing zone on the abandoned service road along the ridge will be designated as a staging area for a helicopter pick-up point. Materials would be flown to drop-off areas located in existing clearings through existing openings in the tree canopy. The drop-off areas may require removal of one tree less than 12 inches in diameter and minor pruning of tree limbs. Minimal grading and excavation will occur as part of development of the proposed trail. Ground disturbance to construct the trail will generally extend to a maximum of 24 inches below ground surface for cuts along the trail, a maximum of four to six feet for cuts at some switchbacks, and several feet at retaining walls and bridge abutments. Grading will be designed so that runoff is shed off the trail as quickly as possible using a combination of out-sloping of the trail and frequent grade reversals (drainage dips). No large construction vehicles will be used in the riparian area. It is anticipated that there will be four construction staging areas off-trail and two along the trail route. The off-trail staging areas will be used for contractor crew parking and storage of equipment, such as bridge materials, concrete, water, wood, tools, and 65 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 14 chainsaws. On-trail staging will be used for organization and storage of equipment. The anticipated staging areas include: Staging Area 1: This staging area will be located at Saratoga Quarry Park at the eastern terminus of the trail and will utilize the existing roads, turnouts and parking areas within the park. The upper parking lot would provide parking for construction crew vehicles and storage areas for equipment and materials. The upper parking lot is currently an unpaved gravel surface area that is not open for use by the public. The parking lot would require only minor improvements to ensure proper drainage (i.e., a silt fence would be placed around the northern perimeter of the parking area to capture silt). Staging Area 2: This staging area will be located at the intersection of the private winery roadway and the old unused and overgrown road to be converted to trail use. It will utilize the broad turnout along the private winery roadway, which is an existing rocked roadway. Staging Area 3: This staging area will be located near the intersection of the water district service road (located along the ridge top) and a PG&E tower access road. It will utilize existing turnouts along both dirt roads. For winter staging, rock aggregate will be placed to fortify and stabilize road access and the staging area as needed. Staging Area 4: This staging area will be located at the end of a second PG&E tower access road. It will utilize turnouts along the existing dirt road. Access to the trail will be by foot down a moderately steep slope following the powerlines. This staging area will only be used shorten access for the delivery of bridge materials to Bridge 3 and 4 and will not be used during winter. Trail Staging: Newly constructed segments of trail will be utilized for staging as construction progresses. Local traffic on streets in the vicinity of the project site will increase incrementally due to construction personnel driving to the staging areas in the Quarry Park and Sanborn Park. The project is expected to require less than 25 construction personnel. 7. Drainage. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implemented on the project site during the construction period. The SWPPP will ensure that soil erosion is minimized, hazardous construction materials are adequately contained, and sediment and synthetic contaminants do not enter creek channels. The project will incorporate all mitigation measures proposed in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. 66 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 15 8. Erosion Control Approximately 200 linear feet of trail would be under construction at any given time with permanent grading and erosion control installed as trail construction progresses. Permanent erosion control measures would include installation of frequent drain dips to prevent concentration of trail runoff, as well as slash packing and mulch to treat exposed soils outside of the trail tread. As noted above, winter construction is anticipated for the project. Any grading for the Project after October 1 would be completed in dry weather or low rainfall (less than ½ inch per 24 hour period). A minimum of 200 linear feet of straw wattle and erosion control blankets would be available at staging area or on site at all times. In the event of 25 percent chance of forecast inclement weather (greater than ½ inch of rainfall in 24 hour period), temporary erosion control measures (e.g. straw wattles, silt fence, erosion control blankets, etc) would be installed to protect the section of trail that is currently under construction. 9. Plant and Trail Maintenance. Existing vegetation, especially native trees and shrubs, will be preserved where possible. The Project will include removal or pruning of some riparian trees and tree limbs adjacent to the trail alignment and near staging areas. Tree removal is described in section 5 above. The proposed trail will be maintained by the City of Saratoga. In addition, because the trail would be located on steep slopes, the trail would require additional maintenance as prescribed by the engineering geologist. 10. Fire Prevention To reduce the risk of fire within the Project, the contractor shall have appropriate and required fire suppression equipment onsite conforming to pertinent City of Saratoga and California Department of Forestry and Fire (CAL FIRE) requirements. This is anticipated to include a fire box with three shovels, axe, Pulaski, chain saw and backpack pump (or bladder bag). The fire box shall be stored in a separate box that will remain locked but accessible on the construction site. E. Circulation, Access, and Parking As discussed above, access to the proposed trail would be through Quarry Park on the east and through Sanborn County Park on the west. Implementation of the project will marginally increase demand for parking in the parking lots in Quarry Park and in Sanborn County Park, consistent with the anticipated increase in trail users after development of the trail. While the entire trail is approximately 3 miles, it is assumed that most visitors will take shorter hikes due to the steepness of the trail. The trail from Saratoga Quarry Park to Bridge 2 requires less strenuous climbing, and Bridge 2 is a picturesque destination. Round trip, this trip is approximately 1.7 miles. It is estimated that the 67 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 16 Project could generate approximately 88 trail users on a typical weekend day and 12 trail users on a typical week day.2 Parking is available at both Quarry Park and Sanborn County Park and is anticipated to be adequate to accommodate a modest increase in demand. It is assumed that most trail users will park at Saratoga Quarry Park and that approximately 17 spaces could be needed for trail users.3 The current parking space is gravel with space for approximately 26 cars and one accessible parking space, which allows for enough parking for the Project. Additionally, the Master Plan for Saratoga Quarry Park proposes a total of 100 to 130 parking spaces at three different locations. If these additional parking areas are developed, parking will be sufficient even if trail use increases in the future. There will be no parking on the western end of the Project at the private winery roadway, although trail users will be able to travel along the private winery roadway to connect to other trails or to Congress Springs Road. Sanborn County Park provides parking in multiple areas of the park. Depending on where future trail extensions link to existing trails, parking to accommodate hikers on the Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector may be available in the Sequoia Group Area, in the Walden West Environmental Center area, or in newly constructed parking areas. 2 Visitor estimate is based on a study of use of comparable trails in neighboring Santa Cruz County, which found that average trail use is approximately 4 visitors per mile of trail on weekdays and 29 visitors per mile of trail on weekends. 3 The parking estimate assumes 2.5 visitors per car and an average visit of 5 hours. 68 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 17 Figure 4 Circulation 69 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 18 F. Habitat Enhancements and Natural Resource Management Habitat restoration would be focused on the riparian zone along Saratoga Creek. The dominant biotic habitats along the trail include riparian areas, chaparral, and oak woodland. Quarry Park-wide efforts involve the removal of invasive species and the revegetation of native plants in compliance with resource agency requirements. In accordance with Chapter 7 of the Master Plan for Quarry Park, the project would adhere to natural resource management guidelines that focus on protecting and enhancing native vegetation. The Quarry Park Guidelines emphasize protecting the relatively intact areas of native vegetation, controlling and working to eradicate highly invasive exotic plants, and encouraging the spread and natural succession of native communities on the site. The Quarry Park Guidelines address the following categories: Riparian buffers. Protection of special status species habitat. Invasive species control. Revegetation. Erosion control Conservation measures for preventing impacts to the area’s biological resources are provided in Appendix A of the Quarry Park Master Plan. G. Signage The proposed Project would include provision of wayfinding signage. Wayfinding signage would be located at the trail eastern terminus within Quarry Park and at the western terminus within Sanborn County Park, and at trail intersections and would only provide directional information. In addition, hazard signage warning trail users of steep terrain and steep drop-offs next to trail will be posted along the trail as needed. H. Project Implementation Schedule The schedule of Project implementation would be determined based on available funds. I. Required Permits and Approvals The proposed Project would require, but may not be limited to, the following approvals from the City of Saratoga. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is intended to serve as the environmental document for these actions, and any other approvals that may be required: - Certification of the environmental documentation 70 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Project Description 19 - Approval of design plans and bid specifications - Approval of contract for construction Additionally, development of the proposed project would require approvals from the following resource agencies: San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (Region 2) U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife California Department of Fish and Wildlife 71 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 20 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: Quarry Park – Sanborn County Park Connector Trail 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Emma Burkhalter, Assistant Engineer, (408) 868-1274 4. Project Location: State Route 9, Santa Clara County (APN 503-73-003) (owned by the San Jose Water Company) with segments crossing through parcels 517-04-011, 517-04-060, 517-04-061, 517- 32-001, and 503-48-045. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Saratoga, Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General Plan Land Use Designation: Hillside – Open Space (OS-H) 7. Zoning: Residential Open Space (R-OS) 8. Description of Project: Please see pages 1-20 of this Initial Study 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Please see page 1 of this Initial Study 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (Region 2) U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife California Department of Fish and Wildlife 72 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 21 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities & Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 73 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 22 _____________________________ Signature Date _____________________________ Printed Name For 74 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 23 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? While the City of Saratoga does not have officially designated scenic vistas, the Open Space and Conservation Element of Saratoga’s existing General Plan does note that undeveloped and agricultural lands are valuable scenic open spaces and that the preservation of these spaces with their scenic views and undisturbed wildlife habitat is essential for the preservation of the City’s rural character. Additionally, Sanborn Road, Bohlman Road/Montevina Road, and Congress Springs Road (from Saratoga City boundary to Santa Cruz County boundary) which are all proximate to the Project site are designated as County Scenic Roadways. Sanborn Road, which is located to the west of the Project site, is surrounded by dense tall trees on both sides which limit long range views of the site from this roadway. For this reason, and because the Project would construct a hiking trail, the proposed Project would not adversely affect views from this County designated Scenic Roadway. Bohlman Road/Montevina Road is slightly closer to the Project site than Sanborn Road; however, the topography of the area in addition to the significant amount of vegetation surrounding this roadway would severely limit views of the Project site from this road. While some views of the site may be possible from certain points on this road, as described above, the proposed Project would not entail structures with the potential to substantially alter these views. Congress Springs Road borders the Project site to the north. Although the proposed trail may be intermittently visible from this road, the topography of the area in addition to the significant amount of vegetation surrounding this roadway would severely limit views of the Project site from this road. Moreover, the Project would include habitat enhancement strategies which would serve to protect natural scenic resources, and historic preservation measures included as a part of the Master Plan would preserve the historic elements of the site which contribute to its scenic value. As result, the proposed Project would have a less-than- significant impact on scenic vistas. 75 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 24 b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? As shown on Figures 3 and 4, California State Route (SR) 9 runs along the northern border of the Project site. SR 9 is designated by the California Scenic Highway Mapping System as an official State scenic highway from the Santa Cruz County line to the Los Gatos city limit. This means that the portion of SR 9 adjacent to the Project site is designated as an official State scenic highway.4 The proposed Project would entail the development of a public trail connecting two parks. As described in the Project Description above, the proposed Project does not include the construction of structures with the potential to make a substantial adverse impact on the scenic resources that exist on the site. During the construction of the trail, the presence of machinery and active construction may have temporary impacts on the views of the site from SR 9. However, vegetation between SR 9 and the trail would serve to reduce potential visual impacts. The topography of the site would also serve to minimize long term impacts. Therefore, while there may be temporary impacts to the visual resources as seen from SR 9 during the construction period, long-term implementation of the Project, would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway and a less-than-significant impact would result. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The existing visual character of the Project site is primarily characterized by undisturbed natural areas. The proposed project would result in generally non-intrusive development, including a multi-use trail, bridges at creek crossings, associated signage, 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 accessible for the use of hikers and equestrians. Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and related impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Because the site would not be open during nighttime hours, no new lighting is proposed as a part of the Project. Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts related to increased light or glare. 4 California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ LandArch/scenic_highways/, accessed May 3, 2019. 76 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 25 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with an existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or of conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? As shown on the maps prepared by the California Resources Agency, no part of the Project site or the sites surrounding the Project site are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.5 Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact with respect to the conversion of farmland. b) Would the project conflict with an existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? As shown on maps prepared by the California Natural Resources Agency neither the Project site nor the land directly surrounding the Project site are under Williamson Act contracts.6 Additionally, as 5 The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, 2010, Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. 6 The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, 2013/2014, Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. 77 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 26 discussed above in the description of the Project, the Project site is not zoned for agriculture. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with an existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would result. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? As shown on maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.7 Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The proposed Project would include natural resources management guidelines as described in the Master Plan for Quarry Park, as well as habitat enhancements, and would include limited removal of trees. Therefore, while the site would be occupied by a public trail with implementation of the proposed Project, impacts related to the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would be less than significant. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or of conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Small-scale agricultural operations including vineyards are located in the vicinity of the Project site. However, the implementation of the trail would not adversely impact agricultural operations. In addition, users of the trail would be moving through the area (rather than staying for long periods of time). As a result, the Project would not have the potential to result in nuisance complaints which could put pressure on these agricultural uses to be converted to non-agricultural uses. The distance of the trail from other surrounding agricultural operations, the hilly topography of the area, as well as the large amount of intervening vegetation would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to the proximity of agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Moreover, given that the proposed Project is intended to preserve open space and natural resources, no aspect of the proposed Project would be considered to result in changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. In fact, the addition of trails that access the Project site and surrounding areas would serve to reduce the pressure to convert surrounding land to non-forest uses. For these reasons, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the potential conversion of forest and agricultural lands. 7 The State of California, California Department of Forestry and Fire protection, Fire Resource Assessment Program, The Management Landscape. 78 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 27 III. AIR QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? This section analyzes the types and quantities of air pollutant emissions that would be generated by the potential construction and operation of the proposed Project. Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and State law under the National and California Clean Air Act, respectively. Air pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, all of them except for ROGs are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Toxic Air Contaminants 79 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 28 In addition to criteria air pollutants, both the State and federal government regulate the release of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The California Health and Safety Code define a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a TAC. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? In April, 2017, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP). The CAP takes into account local land use designations so that if a Project is consistent with the existing land use designation, it is also consistent with the applicable CAP. The proposed Project would result in the development of a trail connecting two existing parks. The proposed Project would be consistent with existing land use designations and would not require any other change in General Plan designation or a zoning amendment. Due to its scale and type, the proposed Project does not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the Santa Clara County region. Therefore, because the Project is consistent with the land use designation for the area, the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Bay Area CAP and would result in a less-than-significant impact. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? A review of the BAAQMD screening criteria indicates that the 3.22 mile trail, which would comprise approximately six acres, is well below the 600-acre screening level for parks. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017, at Table 3-1. Because the Project falls under BAAQMD’s screening criteria for public parks, a detailed air quality assessment of the Project’s air pollutant emissions is not required. The following describes in general terms the Project-related impacts from potential future short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the Project Construction Period Criteria air pollutants generated during construction activities would include the following sources: a.) Exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment; b.) Fugitive dust generated by earthmoving, excavation, and other construction activities; and c.) Motor vehicle emissions associated with vehicle trips. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change and during different construction phases of the proposed Project. However, the amount of dust generated during construction is expected to be minimal but variable, and is dependent on the size of the area disturbed at one time along with the amount of activity, the equipment being operated, soil conditions, and meteorological conditions. Consequently, construction-related criteria pollutant 80 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 29 emissions would result in a less-than-significant impact. However, the measures included in the Quarry Park Master Plan Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (copied below for reference), which also apply to this Project, would reduce any impact even further. Operation Period The operation of the trail would include a minimal number of additional vehicle trips by trail users and maintenance crews. Because the Project falls under BAAQMD’s screening criteria, operation-related criteria pollutant emissions would be considered less than significant. Quarry Park Master Plan Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The Project will implement BAAQMD’s Basic Control Measures for fugitive dust control during future construction to reduce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5). The Project contractor shall prepare a dust control plan prior to commencement of construction activities. Specification of the approved dust control measures shall be included in all construction documents and implemented during construction activities. The dust control plan shall include the following BAAQMD Basic Control Measures listed below: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Apply water twice daily or as often as necessary, to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible), or as often as needed, with water sweepers all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust. Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the Project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Vehicle idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use, or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). 81 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 30 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? According to the CARB’s Area Designations, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a non-attainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS.8 Any project that does not exceed established standards, or can implement measures to mitigate emissions to levels below the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds, does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As described above, the Project consists of developing a trail, the construction or operation of which would not result in a substantial net increase in pollutants, and impacts to air quality would be considered less than significant. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The Project would expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it causes or contributes significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Localized concentrations refer to the amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects to sensitive populations. Construction Risk and Hazards The Project would minimally elevate concentrations of TACs and diesel-PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. Sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project include single-family residential land uses near the Project site on Congress Springs Road/ Highway 9 and Archibald Drive and a single family residence at the Domaine Eden winery at the western boundary of the trail. However, because the Project is designed to include Quarry Park Master Plan Mitigation Measure AIR-1, construction impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Operation Risk and Hazards The proposed Project would result in construction of a public trail, which is not the type of sensitive land use that would necessitate an evaluation of impacts relative to BAAQMD’s community risk thresholds for operation. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur. 8 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2011. Area Designations: Activities and Maps, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/ adm/adm.htm. 82 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 31 CO Hotspots Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots that have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact.9 Development of the proposed Project would generate a nominal amount of vehicle trips associated with a public trail. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Public trails and parks are not considered a type of land use with the potential to create objectionable odors. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Development of the proposed Project would not generate objectionable odors that would lead to a public nuisance; therefore, operational impacts would result in no impact. During any construction activities, construction equipment exhaust would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Odors would not likely be objectionable and constitute a public nuisance. Impacts associated with construction-generated odors would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 83 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 32 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? A Biological Resources Report of the Project area was completed by H. T. Harvey and Associates. See Attachment A to this Initial Study. The Biological Resources Report was based on site observations; review of information from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); review of aerial images of the Project area,; and review of other relevant scientific literature and technical databases. In addition, the Initial Study for the Quarry Park Master Plan evaluated potential impacts to biological resources in the vicinity of the project area and identified Conservation Measures intended to prevent adverse effects on biological resources. The following discussion is based on the Biological Resources Report, which is included as Attachment A, and on the Quarry Park Master Plan Initial Study. The Project area supports potentially regulated and sensitive habitats, as well as habitats that could support a variety of special-status plant and wildlife species. The potential impacts from the Project are identified below, along with mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less-than- significant levels. 84 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 33 a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? According to the Biological Resources Report, the following biological resources may occur within or immediately adjacent to the proposed Project and result in constraints on Project activities: bent- flowered fiddleneck, Loma Prieta hoita, woodland woolythreads, and white-flowered rein orchid (all CNPS CRPR 1 or 2); California red-legged frog (federally listed as threatened and a California species of special concern); Santa Cruz black salamander and California giant salamander (both California species of special concern); western pond turtle (California species of special concern); olive-sided flycatcher (a California species of special concern when nesting); San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats (California species of special concern); pallid bats (California species of special concern); and nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Special-Status Plants No federal or State-listed plant species are expected to occur in the study area. However, four plants categorized by the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 or 2 (bent-flowered fiddleneck, Loma Prieta hoita, woodland woolythreads, and white-flowered rein orchid) are potentially present in areas where they could be impacted by the Project. The Quarry Park Master Plan contains goals, policies, and Conservation Measures (CM), including CM-3 (Minimize Impacts on Special-status Plants and Sensitive Natural Communities including Wetlands), intended to avoid adverse impacts on special-status plants. Although implementation of these policies and Conservation Measures would reduce the magnitude and extent of Project impacts on special-status plant species, the Project could result in the loss of individuals, as complete avoidance may not be feasible while still meeting Project goals and objectives. Permanent impacts on special-status plants that could reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered species would be considered significant. Impacts on populations of species with a CNPS rank of 1 and 2, such as the four special-status plants considered to have some potential for occurrence on the site, would be considered significant and require compensatory mitigation if more than 10 percent of the overall number of a given species occurring within the Project area, and/or known populations of the species within a 5-mile radius of the Project area (if such populations are known), would be affected. In addition, the impact may be considered significant if less than 10 percent of the population within the impact area and/or known populations of the species within a 5-mile radius of the Project area would be affected but the population exhibits unusual morphology, occurs on unusual substrates for that species, or if loss related to the Project could reduce the species’ range, as determined by a qualified botanist familiar with the population present in the impact area and the rare flora of the region. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, and Mitigation Measures BIO- 3 and BIO-4 if needed, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pre-Activity Surveys for Special-Status Plants Prior to initial ground disturbance and during the appropriate blooming period (i.e., bent-flowered fiddleneck, June – July; Loma Prieta hoita, June – July; woodland woolythreads, March – July; and 85 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 34 white-flowered rein orchid, May - September), a focused survey for these four potentially occurring special-status plant species will be conducted within suitable habitat in the project footprint and a minimum 20-ft buffer around the project footprint. This buffer may be increased by the qualified plant ecologist depending on site-specific conditions and activities planned in the areas, but must be at least 20-ft wide. Situations for which a greater buffer may be required include proximity to proposed activities expected to generate large volumes of dust, such as grading; or potential for project activities to alter hydrology supporting the habitat for the species in question. Surveys are to be conducted in a year with near-average or above-average precipitation. The purpose of the survey will be to assess the presence or absence of the potentially occurring species. If none of the target species are found in the impact area or the identified buffer, then no further mitigation will be warranted. If bent-flowered fiddleneck, Loma Prieta hoita, woodland woolythreads, or white-flowered rein orchid individuals are found in the survey area, then Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 will be implemented. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoidance Buffers. To the extent feasible, and in consultation with a qualified plant ecologist, the project proponent will design and construct the project to avoid completely impacts on all populations of special-status plant species within the project site or within the identified buffer of the impact area. Avoided special-status plant populations will be protected by establishing and observing the identified buffer between plant populations and the impact area. All such populations located in the impact area or the identified buffer, and their associated designated avoidance areas, will be clearly depicted on any construction plans. In addition, prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation removal, the limits of the identified buffer around special-status plants to be avoided will be flagged or fenced. The flagging will be maintained intact and in good condition throughout project-related construction activities. If complete avoidance is not feasible and more than 10% of a population (by occupied area or individuals) would be impacted as determined by a qualified plant ecologist, Mitigation Measure BIO- 3 will be implemented. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Preserve Off-Site Populations of Special-Status Plant Species. If avoidance of CRPR 1 or 2 special-status plant species is not feasible and more than 10% of the population would be impacted, compensatory mitigation will be provided via the preservation, enhancement, and management of occupied habitat for the species. To compensate for impacts on CRPR 1 or 2 special-status plants, off-site habitat occupied by the affected species will be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (at least one plant preserved for each plant affected, and at least one occupied acre preserved for each occupied acre affected), for any impact over the 10% significance threshold. Areas proposed to be preserved as compensatory mitigation for special-status plant impacts must contain verified extant populations of the CRPR-ranked plants that would be impacted. Mitigation areas will be managed in perpetuity to encourage persistence and even expansion of the preserved target species. Mitigation lands cannot be located on land that is currently held publicly for resource protection unless substantial enhancement of habitat quality will be achieved by the mitigation activities. The mitigation habitat will be of equal or greater habitat quality compared to the impacted 86 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 35 areas, as determined by a qualified plant ecologist, in terms of soil features, extent of disturbance, vegetation structure, and dominant species composition, and will contain or successfully re-establish at least as many individuals of the species as are impacted by project activities. The permanent protection and management of mitigation lands will be ensured through an appropriate mechanism, such as a conservation easement or fee title purchase. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) will be developed and implemented for the mitigation lands. That plan will include, at a minimum, the following information: • a summary of habitat impacts and the proposed mitigation; • a description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions; • a description of measures to be undertaken to enhance (e.g., through focused management that may include removal of invasive species in adjacent suitable but currently unoccupied habitat) the mitigation site for the focal special-status species; • a description of measures to transplant individual plants or seeds from the impact area to the mitigation site, if appropriate (which will be determined by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist); • proposed management activities to maintain high-quality habitat conditions for the focal species; • a description of habitat and species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc. At a minimum, performance criteria will include demonstration that any plant population fluctuations over the monitoring period do not indicate a downward trajectory in terms of reduction in numbers and/or occupied area for the preserved mitigation population that can be attributed to management (i.e., that are not the result of local weather patterns, as determined by monitoring of a nearby reference population, or other factors unrelated to management); and • contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria. The HMMP will be prepared by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist. Approval of the HMMP by the City will be required before the project impact occurs. Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. California Red-legged Frog There are three records of the California red-legged frog (federally listed as threatened and a California species of special concern) within 3 mi of the study area, including one record from Saratoga Creek, at a location approximately 0.3 mi of the study area (CNDDB 2019). While no high-quality breeding habitat 87 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 36 for the California red-legged frog is present in the study area, this species may use streams and associated riparian corridors in the study area as foraging and/or dispersal habitat. Project activities would not result in the loss of breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog. However, suitable foraging and dispersal habitat would be disturbed. This impact would be temporary, occurring only during trail construction and maintenance activities. In addition, if individuals are present during construction activities, grading, excavation, and ground disturbance associated with construction of the trail, retaining walls, and bridge abutments, could result in injury or mortality of individuals, a significant impact due to the species regional rarity. Seasonal movements may be temporarily affected during construction activities because of disturbance, and substrate vibrations may cause individuals to move out of refugia, exposing them to a greater risk of predation or desiccation. In addition, potential spills or leaks of hazardous chemicals from construction equipment could harm individual frogs and increases in human concentration and activity in the vicinity of suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site and that would prey opportunistically on individuals of this species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO 4–6, as well as Mitigation Measure BIO-11, BMPs for Work within Sensitive Habitats, as described below, would reduce project impacts on the California red-legged frog to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Before any construction activities begin, the City will hire a qualified biologist who will conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include descriptions of all special-status species potentially occurring on the project site and their habitats, the importance of these species, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve them as they relate to the proposed project, and the boundaries within which project activities may be accomplished. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoidance. Because dusk and dawn are often the times when the red-legged frog is most actively moving and foraging, to the maximum extent practicable, earthmoving and other project activities will cease no less than 30 minutes before sunset and will not begin again prior to 30 minutes after sunrise. Further, to the extent practicable, ground-disturbing activities will be avoided from October through April because that is when red-legged frogs are most likely to be moving through upland areas. When ground-disturbing activities must take place between November 1 and March 31, the following measures will be implemented. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Pre-activity Survey. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for the California red-legged frog prior to initial ground disturbing activities within 100 ft of any stream crossing and will remain on-site to monitor during all initial ground-disturbing activities within this area. If a California red-legged frog is encountered in the work area, all activities with the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual will be immediately halted and will not resume until the individual leaves the project site of its own accord. Santa Cruz Black Salamander and California Giant Salamander 88 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 37 The project would not result in the loss of any aquatic breeding habitat for the California giant salamander. Construction activities, particularly tree removal, would result in the permanent loss of a small amount of riparian habitat (i.e., potential breeding habitat for the Santa Cruz black salamander). However, because of the relatively small amount of riparian habitat that would be affected relative to the extent of suitable riparian habitat in the region, impacts on breeding habitat for the Santa Cruz black salamander would be considered less than significant. If Santa Cruz black salamanders or California giant salamanders are present during project activities, individuals would be at risk for injury or mortality due to equipment, vehicle traffic, and foot traffic, a potentially significant impact (Significance Criterion A) due to the species regional rarity. In addition, substrate vibrations may cause individuals to move out of refugia, exposing them to a greater risk of predation or desiccation; may interfere with predator detection; and may result in a decrease in time spent foraging. Such impacts would be temporary in nature, occurring only during construction or maintenance activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4, as described above for the California red-legged frog; Mitigation Measure 11, as described under Impact 6.2.2 below; and Mitigation Measure 7 would reduce project impacts on these species to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Pre-activity Survey. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for special-status amphibians and reptiles prior to initial ground disturbing activities within 100 ft of any stream crossing and will remain on-site to monitor during all initial ground-disturbing activities within this area. If a species of special concern is encountered in the work area, all activities with the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual will be immediately halted and the following measures implemented: • If eggs or larvae are found, the qualified biologist will establish a buffer around the location of the eggs/larvae and work may proceed outside of the buffer zone. No work will occur within the buffer zone. Work within the buffer zone will be rescheduled until the time that eggs have hatched and/or larvae have metamorphosed. If an adult is found, the individual will be captured and relocated to a safe location outside of the work area by a qualified biologist, after which work may proceed. Western Pond Turtle The study area provides marginal quality basking habitat for western pond turtles due to the paucity of open water and basking sites. Therefore, there is a low probability of this species using the study area for nesting. However, pond turtles may use the study area, especially the riparian corridors, for dispersal. The project would not result in the loss of any aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle or in a substantial loss of upland dispersal habitat. However, if individuals are present during project activities, they would be at risk for injury or mortality due to equipment, vehicle traffic, and foot traffic, a potentially significant impact (Significance Criterion A) due to the species regional rarity. Such impacts would be temporary in nature, occurring only during construction or maintenance activities. Including the western pond turtle when implementing Mitigation Measure BIO-4, as described above for the California red-legged frog, and Mitigation Measure BIO-7, as described for the 89 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 38 California giant salamander and Santa Cruz black salamander, would reduce project impacts on the western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level. Olive-sided Flycatcher The mixed evergreen forest and mixed riparian forest in the study area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species. Project construction activities may affect olive-sided flycatcher nesting and foraging habitat and could possibly impact active nests, including eggs or nestlings. Construction activities, particularly tree removal, could result in the permanent loss of nesting habitat. However, because of the relatively small amount of forest habitat that would be affected relative to the extent of suitable habitat in the region, impacts on habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect. Adult olive-sided flycatchers are not expected to be killed or injured due to project activities because they could easily fly from the work site prior to such effects occurring. However, eggs or young in nests may be killed or injured as a result of destruction by construction personnel or equipment, or removal of vegetation containing nests. Further, nesting may be disrupted to the extent that nests would fail because of disturbance that was too frequent or too severe. In addition, project activities causing a substantial increase in noise, movement of equipment, or human presence may have a direct effect on the behavior of individuals causing them to avoid work sites and possibly exposing them to increased competition with other birds in the areas to which they disperse and increased levels of predation caused by unfamiliarity with the new area. These types of impacts are expected to occur primarily while construction or maintenance activities are ongoing. Increases in human concentration, including ongoing trail use, and activity associated with maintenance activities near suitable habitat also may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left in the work site. However, based on our site observations, the areal extent of the study area, and known breeding densities of this species, no more than two pairs of olive-sided flycatchers are expected to nest on or adjacent to the study area, if it is present at all. Therefore, the loss of individuals potentially resulting from project development would represent a very small fraction of the regional population of this species and would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect. Nevertheless, all native bird species, including the olive-sided flycatcher are protected from direct take by federal and state statutes (see also discussion of impacts to native bird species in below). San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat Many nests of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a California species of special concern, were observed at the site adjacent to existing trails during the field survey. Additional nests are likely scattered throughout these habitats in the study area. Project activities may result in the injury or mortality of dusky-footed woodrats because of equipment use and worker foot traffic, particularly when woodrats are taking refuge in their stick nests. Suitable habitat and nests may be directly lost as a result of clearing and grading for the proposed trail, retaining walls, and bridge abutments. Project construction could potentially result in the loss of tens of nests due to the species’ abundance along the proposed trail’s alignment. Indirect impacts also could occur as a result of over-crowding (as individuals lost habitat and moved to areas that were already occupied) and increased risk of predation. As a result of the species’ regional 90 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 39 abundance and high reproductive capabilities, project impacts on dusky-footed woodrats would not have a substantial effect on regional populations. However, woodrats are very important ecologically in that they provide an important prey source for raptors (particularly owls) and for predatory mammals, and their nests also provide habitat for a wide variety of small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. As a result, the loss of large numbers of woodrats and their nests would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-4, as described above, as well as Mitigation Measures BIO-8 would reduce project impacts on the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and its habitat to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-8. Preconstruction Surveys and Avoidance or Nest Relocation. Prior to any clearing of, or work within, woodland, riparian, and scrub habitats, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests. If active nests are determined to be present within or very close to the impact areas, the following measures will be implemented. • Dusky-footed woodrats are year-round residents. Therefore, avoidance measures are limited to restricting project activities to avoid direct impacts on woodrats and their active nests to the extent feasible. Ideally, a minimum 5-ft buffer will be maintained between project activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, removing the nest would be a greater impact than that anticipated as a result of project activities. • If avoidance of active nests is not feasible, then the woodrats will be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests and onset of any clearing or ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the woodrats. The nests will be dismantled and the nesting material moved to a new location outside the project’s impact areas so that it can be used by woodrats to construct new nests. Prior to nest deconstruction, each active nest will be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge out of the impact area. Whether the nest is on the ground or in a tree, the nest will be nudged to cause the woodrats to flee. The nest will then be dismantled and the nest material piled at the base of a nearby hardwood tree or shrub (preferably with refuge sites among the tree roots or with dense vegetation or other refugia nearby) outside of the impact area. The spacing between relocated nests will not be less than 100 ft, unless a qualified biologist has determined that the habitat can support higher densities of nests. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would be adequate to assure that impacts on dusky- footed woodrats and their habitat would be less than significant. Because the species’ habitats are relatively widespread, impacts on its habitat would not require additional species-specific mitigation. Pallid Bats The pallid bat, a California species of special concern, may forage throughout the study area. In addition, several larger trees with small to moderate-sized cavities were observed along the project alignment during the reconnaissance survey. These trees provide suitable roosting and breeding habitat for the pallid bat and removal of such trees could result in the loss of pallid bat roost sites. When trees containing roosting colonies or individual pallid bats are removed or modified, individual bats could be 91 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 40 physically injured or killed; could be subjected to physiological stress from being disturbed during torpor; or could face increased predation because of exposure during daylight. In addition, nursing young may be subjected to disturbance-related abandonment by their mothers. Proposed project-related disturbance near a maternity roost of pallid bats, could cause females to abandon their young. Such impacts could be significant (Significance Criterion A) because the species’ population and available roosting habitat are limited locally and regionally and because loss of habitat or individuals may have a substantial adverse effect on local and regional populations of the species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-9 and BIO-10 would reduce project impacts on the pallid bat to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-9. Protect Bat Colonies. To minimize impacts on pallid bats the following measures will be implemented: • A pre-activity survey for roosting pallid bats will be conducted prior to the onset of ground- disturbing activities. A qualified bat biologist will conduct a survey to look for evidence of bat use within suitable habitat. If evidence of use is observed, or if high-quality roost sites are present in areas where evidence of bat use might not be detectable (such as a tree cavity), an evening survey and/or a nocturnal acoustic survey may be necessary to determine if a bat colony is present and to identify the specific location of the bat colony. • If no active maternity colony or non-breeding bat roost is located, project work can continue as planned. • If an active pallid bat maternity colony or non-breeding roost is located, the project work will be redesigned to avoid disturbance of the roosts, if feasible. • If an active maternity colony is located and project work cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied tree, disturbance will be scheduled to take place outside the maternity roost season (March 15–July 31), and a disturbance-free buffer zone (determined by a qualified bat biologist) will be implemented during the maternity roost season. • If an active non-breeding bat roost is located and project work cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied tree, the individuals will be safely evicted between August 1 and October 15 or between February 15 and March 15 (as determined by a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW). Bats may be evicted through exclusion after notifying CDFW. Trees with roosts that must be removed will first be disturbed at dusk, just before removal that same evening, to allow bats to escape during the darker hours. Mitigation Measure BIO-10 (Provide Alternative Bat Roost Habitat) may need to be implemented subsequently. Mitigation Measure BIO-10. Provide Alternative Bat Roost Habitat. If, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9, a qualified bat biologist identifies a tree containing a pallid bat maternity roost that is to be removed by project activities, a qualified bat biologist will design and determine an appropriate location for an alternative roost structure. If 92 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 41 a tree containing a pallid bat maternity roost is not removed, but project-related disturbance causes the abandonment of the roost site (even during the non-breeding season), then the City will either monitor the roost site to determine whether the affected species returns to the roost, or construct an alternative roost. If the City elects to monitor the roost and bats do not return within one year, then an alternative roost will be constructed. Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. b) Would the project 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? Impacts on Mixed Evergreen Forest The project would impact up to 6.18 ac of mixed evergreen forest. However, the vast majority of the study area and adjacent habitat is composed of this alliance type. Additionally, this alliance is common on a regional level, and is known to occur extensively in the Santa Cruz Mountains (Sawyer et al 2009). Furthermore, impacts from trail construction would be minor within this alliance type. Understory vegetation is sparse and undeveloped, and most trail construction would only result in soil disturbance and would not impact a substantial amount of vegetation. Overstory vegetation would be left mostly intact, with four California bay trees currently slated for removal. Additional California bay trees may be removed during the course of project implementation, however, the number of trees would be minimal, and would be insignificant considering the prevalence of California bay within the study area specifically and in the region generally. California bay is a particularly robust species, and any removed trees would likely regenerate naturally from stump or root stock. Based upon this alliance’s local and regional abundance and the minor nature of impacts project implementation would cause, impacts on mixed evergreen forest are considered less than significant. Impacts on Mixed Riparian Forest The Project could result in impacts on riparian habitat. Construction of the trail and associated bridges would result in minor impacts (0.03 acres) on mixed riparian forest within the study area. The project has avoided and minimized riparian impacts by designing clear span bridges for the four trail crossings that will introduce only minor abutment-related impacts on the riparian banks. However, riparian vegetation removal would occur, and would include the removal of at least one 18-inch diameter California bay tree. Vegetation recovery would be limited underneath the bridge crossings due to bridge shading. In addition, indirect impacts could occur in the form of equipment spills and bank destabilization, if not avoided. Loss of riparian vegetation would constitute a significant impact under CEQA owing to the importance of this habitat type to regional biodiversity. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce impacts on riparian habitat to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-11. Best Management Practices for Work within Sensitive Habitats. The following measures will be implemented to reduce impacts on mixed riparian forest and the associated streams. Additionally, the project will acquire permits from CDFW and RWQCB and follow all requirements and avoidance and minimization measures listed therein. 93 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 42 • Personnel will prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water into channels. • Spill prevention kits will always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials. • No equipment servicing will be done in the stream channel or immediate flood plain, unless equipment stationed in these locations cannot be readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators). • Personnel will use the appropriate equipment for the job that minimizes disturbance to the stream bottom. Appropriately-tired vehicles, either tracked or wheeled, will be used depending on the situation • Temporary fills, such as for access ramps or scaffolding, will be completely removed upon finishing the work. • Existing native vegetation will be retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width. • If riparian vegetation is to be removed with chainsaws, consider using saws currently available that operate with vegetable-based bar oil • Control exposed soil by stabilizing slopes (e.g., with erosion control blankets) and protecting channels (e.g., using silt fences or straw wattles). • Control sediment runoff using sandbag barriers or straw wattles. • Stabilize site ingress/egress locations. • Temporary disturbance or removal of aquatic and riparian vegetation will not exceed the minimum necessary to complete the work. • Vehicles operated within and adjacent to streams will be checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of materials that, if introduced to the water, could be deleterious to aquatic life. • Potential contaminating materials must be stored in covered storage areas or secondary containment that is impervious to leaks and spills • All disturbed soils will be revegetated with native plants suitable for the altered soil conditions upon completion of construction. Local watershed native plants will be used if available. All disturbed areas that have been compacted shall be de-compacted prior to planting or seeding. Cut-and-fill slopes will be planted with local native or non-invasive plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. Mitigation Measure BIO-12. Mitigation Plantings for Permanent Loss of Riparian Trees. 94 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 43 All trees removed within mixed riparian forest habitat will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 (mitigation stems: impacted stems). Trees to be removed likely consist of only California bay, a tree which is very abundant within riparian areas in the study area and the vicinity. Replaced trees will preferably consist of the same species which was removed during project implementation, and be planted within the same reach where impacts occur. Irrigation will not be installed, so the replacement trees must be planted low enough on the riparian banks to anticipate intercepting seasonal groundwater. Replacement trees will be monitored annually for three years and replaced to 100% survivorship through Year 3. Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impact to a less-than-significant level. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? According to the Biological Resources Report, wetlands do not occur within the study area, however, the proposed project could impact sensitive stream habitats on the project site that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) under sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, and qualify as “waters of the state” subject to regulation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”). Development of areas near creeks can negatively impact water quality. In order to eliminate direct impacts on sensitive creek habitat, the project has been designed to utilize clear span bridges at all four stream crossings, with any required footings located above the ordinary high water mark. Therefore, no direct impacts would occur within jurisdictional other waters habitat. Nevertheless, indirect impacts could still occur due to equipment spills and bank destabilization, which could adversely affect water quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11, discussed above, would reduce these impacts to a less- than-significant level. Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Natural habitats in the study area are surrounded by large areas of open natural habitats to the west, northwest, and south along the Santa Cruz Mountains. The study area is located in mixed evergreen forest, riparian woodland, and an existing approximately 100-ft wide powerline right-of-way. Although construction of the trail would create a narrow corridor (a 5-ft wide trail) through existing natural communities, it would result in negligible loss of habitat and animals would continue to be able to move across the trail after it is completed. Moreover, because construction of the trail is expected to 95 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 44 require removal of only a small number of trees, no substantial changes in canopy cover or forest composition would result from project implementation. The vegetation communities along streams and rivers often function as wildlife movement corridors, and in the study area Congress Springs Creek and other tributaries to Saratoga Creek are expected to function as such. Although the proposed trail alignment crosses streams at four locations, all four crossings would be composed of clear span bridges. Therefore, following completion of construction, the project would not impede the movement of species moving along the riparian corridors. Noise and disturbance associated with trail construction, ongoing trail maintenance activities, and trail use by humans could cause species that commonly use habitats within the study area for dispersal to temporarily avoid moving through the site. The loudest noise would be associated with construction (including helicopter delivery of bridges) and temporary maintenance activities, and once such activities are complete, wildlife use of the surrounding areas would be similar to existing conditions. It is likely that trail use by humans will inhibit movement of some more sensitive wildlife species, such as mountain lions (Puma concolor), through the site, as this species is particularly sensitive to human activity. However, ample opportunity exists for movement by this species in the vicinity of the project site (either in other locations or when humans are not actively using the trail), and while dispersal or habitat use by this species may be limited by the introduction of human activity to this trail site, impacts on regional mountain lion populations or movements are not expected to be substantial. Thus, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors and this impact would be less than significant. Disturbance related to construction activities, maintenance, and post-construction trail use during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests located near the trail. In particular, delivery of bridges via helicopter would introduce substantial noise, and rotor wash could physically impact nests by knocking nests, eggs, or young out of trees. However, the habitats in the study area represent a very small proportion of the habitats that support these species regionally. In addition, all species of birds currently using the study area are expected to continue to nest and forage on the site after project construction is completed because no substantial loss of habitat would occur and use of the trail following its completion would be limited to low impact activities such as hiking/jogging and horseback riding. Therefore, project impacts on common nesting and foraging birds due to disturbance would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and these impacts would not constitute a significant impact on these species or their habitats under CEQA. However, all native bird species are protected from direct take by federal and state statutes (see Sections 3.1.5 and 3.2.4). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-13 , which incorporates measures in the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) and California Fish and Game Code will ensure that project activities comply with those regulations: Mitigation Measure BIO-13. Protection Measures for Nesting Birds. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code 96 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 45 would be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in the project region extends from February 1 through August 31. Preconstruction Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31 then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project construction. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist should inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. Buffers. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by project activities, the ornithologist should determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 ft for raptors and 100 ft for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be disturbed during project implementation. Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of these measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance Per the County of Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, §C16.1 to §C16.17), permits from the County are required for removal of any tree which meets the definition of protected tree. No trees within the portion of the study area in unincorporated Santa Clara County meet the definition of protected trees, due to the parcels being located within the “Hillside” zoning district and being greater than 3 acres in size. Therefore, there would be no impact regarding conflicts with the County of Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. City of Saratoga Tree Ordinance Per City of Saratoga Municipal Code Chapter 15, permission to remove protected trees may be granted as part of approval of other development permits. However, the Tree Ordinance only applies to private development projects, and not to projects implemented by the City itself. In addition, the only protected trees potentially affected by the project are in riparian areas and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would replace all trees lost in riparian areas at a ratio of 1:1. Therefore, there would be no impact regarding conflicts with the City of Saratoga Tree Ordinance. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District have collaborated to create the 97 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 46 Santa Clara Valley Habitat conservation Plan. However, the Project site does not fall within the plan’s study area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any such plans. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? A records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (“NWIC”) was conducted for the Project site. The results of this records search were used to inform the following analysis. a-b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? The records search revealed that the State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory (“OHP HPD”) (which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places) lists no recorded buildings or structures adjacent to the proposed project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed project area. There is one recorded archaeological resources in the proposed project area (P-43-000374), a moderate potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources, and a moderate potential of identifying additional historic-period archaeological resources in the project area. As discussed in the Project Description, the proposed Project is limited to construction of a trail, construction of bridges to facilitate three stream crossings, and trail furniture, such as benches and signage. Therefore, ground disturbance would be largely limited to excavations for the trail and for bridge abutments. Therefore the potential for disturbance of unidentified underground resources would be limited. However, there is the potential that unrecorded underground resources could be encountered during trail and bridge construction. 98 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 47 Mitigation measures CULT-1 and CULT-2 would reduce potential impacts related to a substantial change in the significance of an archeological resource to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Prior to commencing site preparation and trail construction, the City shall hold a preconstruction meeting with the construction crew to inform them with a description of the types of resources that could be discovered and the steps to take in the event of a find. Mitigation Measure CULT- 2: If archaeological and/or paleontological materials are encountered during the field review, all work within 25 feet of the discovery would be redirected until a qualified archaeologist assesses the finds, consults with City staff, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Adverse effects to archaeological and paleontological resources shall be avoided by project activities. Project personnel shall not collect or move any historical or archaeological resources. If avoidance of the deposit is not feasible, the deposit should be evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, mitigation is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they shall be avoided by project construction activities, or recovered in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment (i.e., archaeological excavation and laboratory analysis), 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. The following directive will be included in all contract documents/specifications: “If archaeological or paleontological materials are encountered during project activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until an archaeologist assesses the finds, consults with City staff and appropriate agencies, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials.” Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic features that are encountered during ground disturbance to less-than-significant levels. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No prehistoric resources were found during field review surveys. Given that the amount of ground disturbing activities associated with development of the proposed trail is minor the chance of destroying potential paleontological resources is also low. Should paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature be discovered mitigation measures CULT-1 and 2 would reduce potential associated impacts to a less-than-significant level. 99 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 48 d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? There is the possibility that buried archaeological deposits could be present, and accidental discovery could occur. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (f) if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery would be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds. Additionally, if human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the County coroner contacted. The procedures detailed in mitigation measure CULT-3 below would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would reduce the potential impact to the disturbance of human remains to less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If human remains are encountered during construction that results from approval of the proposed Project, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered remains and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context. Once the county coroner is contacted, if it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”). The NAHC would then identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased. These descendants will make recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity. Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impacts to human remains that are encountered during construction to less-than-significant levels. VI. ENERGY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 100 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 49 Construction The Project would result in energy consumption from the construction phase related to construction equipment use and vehicle trips, including worker trips and equipment delivery. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary, finite, and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Furthermore, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the State. The proposed Project would not create a high enough demand for energy to require development of new energy sources. Therefore, the proposed construction activities would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. For these reasons, potential impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. Operation The proposed Project has been designed to provide trail facilities and access to open space resources to existing users of Quarry Park and Sanborn Park and would not result in substantial increased use of the park. The same amount of parking and internal roads as well as the same type and extent of facilities would be provided. As such, operation of the Project would be essentially the same as the existing condition, with the exception of periodic maintenance of the trail as needed. Therefore, fuel consumption related to visitor and other vehicular trips would be similar. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. To promote energy conservation, the City has adopted an amended Green Building Standards Code (Section 16-49.010 of the City’s Code). The City has also adopted policies related to renewable energy and/or energy efficiency in the City’s Municipal Code Article 16-51 – Energy and in Municipal Code Chapter 17 – Sustainability. However, the proposed Project would not include structures or infrastructure to which these policies would be applicable. The Project would involve negligible long- term energy use, primarily related to periodic maintenance of the trail. As discussed above, the Project would involve energy use during construction only, with no substantial additional energy use related to long-term operation of the Project. As such, the Project would neither obstruct nor contribute to the City’s policies related to energy use. There would be a less-than- significant impact and no mitigation is required. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 101 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 50 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? An engineering geologic and geotechnical study was completed by Timothy Best in May 2019 (hereafter referred to as “Best Report”). See Best Report attached as Attachment B. The report was based on review of published geologic literature, review of LiDAR-derived elevation models, topographic survey and field review of the four bridge sites. The following discussion is based on the Best Report. 102 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 51 a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii) strong seismic ground shaking; iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards? i, ii) The Project site is proximate to a potentially active portion of the San Andreas fault.10,11 However, the site does not fall within the special studies zone boundary identified on these maps. Since the site does not fall within the special studies boundary, the structures proposed on site are bridges and not habitable structures, and visitors to the park would be temporary, the proposed Project would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact with respect to the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known fault or other substantial evidence of a known fault, or strong ground shaking, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. iii, iv) Much of the Project site is within areas where previous occurrences of landslide movement, or local topographic, geologic, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. Moreover, these maps show that small portions of the Project site are within areas where historic occurrences of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. As explained in the Best Report, although the proposed trail is located in an area of potentially significant geologic hazards and damage to the trail or trail structures may occur during adverse geologic events (e.g. intense storms and high ground accelerations during earthquakes), the risk to users from the geologic hazards is expected to be low due to the short duration and low frequency of trail use. Therefore the users of the trail and trail bridges, if exercising reasonable common sense, are not expected to be subject to risks from naturally occurring geologic hazards beyond a reasonable level of risk consistent with recreational trail use. A discussed in the description of the Project above, the new structures proposed as a part of the Project would be limited to bridges to facilitate stream crossings. The trail and trail structures will require routine inspection, maintenance and repair as needed to abate the risks from geologic hazards. No residential units would be constructed and there would be no permanent residents on the site. For these reasons, potential impacts would be less-than- significant. 10 State of California, The Resources Agency Department of Conservation, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, Castle Rock Ridge Quadrangle, Special Studies Zones. 11 State of California, The Resources Agency Department of Conservation, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974, Cupertino Quadrangle, Special Studies Zones. 103 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 52 b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction of the Project would include grading and excavation. The Project has been designed to minimize erosion by including installation of frequent drain dips to prevent concentration of trail runoff, as well as slash packing and mulch to treat exposed soils outside of the trail tread. The Quarry Park Master Plan includes design guidelines and Conservation Measures that also require restoration of impacted areas to minimize soil erosion (CM-11), the use of native plant species to be planted as ground cover on faces of cut and fill slopes (Resource.26), and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention (CM-2). Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Erosion Control. Any grading for the Project after October 1 shall be completed in dry weather or low rainfall (less than ½ inch per 24 hour period). A minimum of 200 linear feet of straw wattle and erosion control blankets shall be available at staging areas or on site at all times. In the event of 25 percent chance of forecast inclement weather (greater than ½ inch of rainfall in 24 hour period), temporary erosion control measures (e.g. straw wattles, silt fence, erosion control blankets, etc.) shall be installed to protect the section of trail under construction. Mitigation Measure GEO-2. Stormwater Pollution Prevention. The contractor will develop and get approval for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Project. The SWPPP shall include an erosion control plan and best management practices that will ensure that erosion and sedimentation will be minimized. Construction shall be monitored per SWPPP requirements to ensure that stormwater is being managed to prevent soil erosion and water quality impacts. Significance after Mitigation: The combination of project design, compliance with existing regulations, implementation of applicable measures in the Master Plan, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that erosion impacts would be avoided and that impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? According to the Best Report, the Project site is located on steep mountainous terrain in an area identified as geologically unstable and as having active landslide areas and unstable soils. As discussed above, structures included as components of the proposed Project would be limited to four bridges. The Best Report includes specifications for trail and bridge design, construction of and lateral pressure on bridge foundations. The Project incorporates the Best Report Recommendations as Project elements. In addition, adherence to mitigation measure GEO-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. 104 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 53 Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Incorporation of Geologic and Geotechnical Recommendations. The Project will incorporate all recommendations in the Best Report to ensure that impacts related to unstable soil, and potential landslides, subsidence, liquefaction and collapse are minimized. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils were not identified in the report prepared by Timothy C. Best. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The Project does not propose construction of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would result in this respect. VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? This section analyzes the Project’s contribution to global climate change impacts in California through an analysis of Project-related GHG emissions. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, into the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs; water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3) - which are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include; nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons. A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, this impact analysis measures the Project’s contribution to the cumulative environmental 105 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 54 impact. GHG emissions would be generated from construction activities and operation of the proposed Project. Construction Period Construction emissions are short-term and GHG emissions from future construction activities would nominally contribute to GHG emissions impacts. For this reason, BAAQMD does not identify a significance threshold for project-related construction emissions. However, because operational impacts would be less than significant, construction emissions, which would take place over a relatively short duration compared to operational emissions, would also be considered less than significant. Operational Phase Operation of the proposed Project would nominally contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from transportation sources (from the future addition of visitors to the proposed trail). As discussed in section III.b above, the proposed Project falls well below the 600-acre screening level for parks.12 Therefore, the operational phase GHG emissions are expected to be below the BAAQMD threshold of significance and result in a less-than-significant impact. The City of Saratoga has not adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan. In the absence of an applicable qualified GHG reduction strategy, BAAQMD’s adopted screening criteria for development projects are applicable to the Project. As discussed in Section a), the operational phase GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would not exceed BAAQMD’s screening criteria. The Project would be consistent with the existing regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? As discussed above in response to criteria VII.a), the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to applicable plans, policies, or regulations of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, CEQA Guidelines Updated May 2017, Table 3-1 Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes. 106 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 55 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury. or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? The Project would include the development of a public trail and would not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, a significant hazard related to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials would not be created and related impacts would be less-than- significant. 107 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 56 b) Would the project 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? While construction of the park could involve the presence of some hazardous materials germane to construction activities, these construction activities would be relatively minor and as such would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Also, as discussed in response to criteria a) in section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, approval of the proposed Project would be contingent upon compliance with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The proposed Project would not emit a significant amount of hazardous emissions or involve a significant amount of hazardous materials. Moreover, there are no schools located within a quarter mile of the Project site. Therefore, a no impact would occur in this respect. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The proposed Project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.13 Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment in this respect and no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? The closest public airport or public use airport to the Project site is the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, located approximately 16 miles north east of the Project site. The Project site is not within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan prepared for the airport. For these reasons no impact would occur with respect to the Project resulting in a safety hazard for people living or working in the area of the Project. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area There are no private airports in the direct vicinity of the Project site. The closest private airstrip is the Regional Medical Center San Jose H2 Heliport, located at 2425 Samaritan Drive which is located approximately 10 miles from the Project site. Due to the physical separation that exists, development of the proposed Project would have no effect on the operations of this helipad and the presence of the 13 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov, accessed August 7, 2017. 108 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 57 helipad would not present additional risks to the safety of people in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no impact would result with respect to safety hazards for peoples living or working in the vicinity of the Project site. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project would result in the development of a public trail. Implementation of the trail is expected to result in a modest increase in use of Quarry Park. The Project would not alter roadways or substantially increase traffic congestion in the City of Saratoga or the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project would not alter existing emergency response procedures, and existing service roads on site would be available for emergency services vehicles. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. h) Would the project 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? On the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibilities Areas map prepared by Cal Fire, the site is shown to be in a “high” Fire Hazard Severity Zone, where the categories are moderate, high, and very high. Because the Project is subject to the Quarry Park Master Plan, that Plan’s fire safety provisions, including bans on open fires and barbeque pits on site and complying with relevant City codes with respect to required access for fire protection services would serve to reduce potential impacts related to the risks from wildland fires. The area adjoining the Project site includes open woodland and heavily wooded residential areas. The development of the proposed trail would not entail the addition of residential units and would not serve to increase fire risk on or off site which could increase the risk to surrounding properties. Moreover, new structures on the Project site would be limited to retaining walls and bridges at stream crossings. People within the Project site would be temporary visitors, and as previously noted, trail regulations would ban open fires. As a result, the additional structures adjacent to wildlands would not be significant structures and the risk to people would be minimized by virtue of the visitors being temporary. Therefore, the Project would not increase the risk of wildland fire, new structures would be minor, visitors would be temporary, and elements of the proposed Project would reduce the risk of fire, the exposure of people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Related impacts would be less-than-significant. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 109 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 58 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a significant lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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, siltation on- or off-site? d) 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 flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Potentially be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (“RWQCB”s). The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for implementation of 110 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 59 State and federal water quality protection guidelines in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. The RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), a master policy document for managing water quality issues in the region.14 Runoff water quality is regulated by the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Nonpoint Source Program (established through the Clean Water Act). The NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from nonpoint discharges. The program is administered by the California RWQCBs. The Project site would be under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.15 The City of Saratoga is a member agency in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, which helps to reduce the amount of runoff pollution by incorporating regulatory, monitoring and outreach measures aimed at reducing pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum extent practicable," to improve the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of the Santa Clara Valley. The Program is organized, coordinated and implemented in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by each Co-permittee, including the City of Saratoga. The MOA was signed in 1990 and updated in 1999, 2005 and 2006. It covers the responsibilities of each Co-permittee and provides a cost-sharing formula for joint expenditures. Construction of the trail would be subject to all applicable water quality standards as required by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and waste discharge requirements. Moreover, pursuant to federal law, since the Project would disturb at least one acre of soil, prior to issuance of a building permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required. This SWPPP would ensure that soil erosion is minimized and hazardous construction materials are adequately contained. Compliance with these provisions would result in a less-than-significant impact. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a significant lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The Project would not alter or deplete groundwater supplies and would not change current groundwater recharge conditions. Trail users would use existing composting toilets and drinking water fountains within Quarry Park. Due to the relatively nominal amount of water used within the site, the Project would not result in a level of water use that would have the potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a significant lowering of the local groundwater table level. Therefore, a less-than- significant impact would result. 14 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s website. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/, accessed on May 5, 2019. 15 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s website. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/, accessed on May 5, 2019. 111 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 60 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, siltation on- or off-site? The Project proposes construction of a trail and bridges within the riparian zone. However, the Project has been designed to incorporate clear span bridges to avoid disturbance to the stream bed and banks. The Project design also incorporates out-slopes of 3-5 percent and frequent reverse grade dips to ensure that trail runoff is no concentrated, thus minimizing alteration of the site’s existing drainage pattern. The conversion of existing roads into trails will minimally alter the drainage of the site; however, due to the proposed design of these trails and using industry standard techniques for stormwater management, these impacts would not be significant. Additionally, the habitat enhancement element of the Master Plan would include improvements to the hydrology of the portion of Saratoga Creek that is on the Project site including buffers around the creek. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would have minimal impacts on the hydrology of the site, in part as a result of the passive use nature of the Project, and the proposed measures which would enhance the hydrological components of the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) 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 flooding on- or off-site? See Response in part c) above. The existing drainage pattern of the site would not be substantially altered and the Project proposes improvements to the site’s hydrology to limit potential adverse impacts. As a result, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact in relation to flooding on- or off-site. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The Project does not propose to install impermeable surfaces except for the bridge abutments. These areas would result in a minor additional source of runoff on-site and they would not result in polluted runoff. Moreover, the Project would not result in a connection to any stormwater drainage system. Therefore a less-than-significant impact would result. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Outside of the areas discussed above, no aspect of the Project would serve to substantially degrade water quality. Therefore a less-than-significant impact would occur. g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The proposed Project would not include a residential component. No impact would occur. 112 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 61 h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? As shown on Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area.16 Therefore no impact would result in this respect. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? As discussed above, the Project site is not within the 100-year floodplain identified by FEMA. As a result, the risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding would not be significant. The Saratoga General Plan notes that there are not any critical facilities located within a dam failure inundation area in Saratoga. Maps prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) show that portions of the Project Site are within the inundation hazard area of the Lake Ranch Reservoir.17 As described above, there would not be a residential component associated with the proposed Project. As a result, all people on the site would be visitors and their stay would be temporary. This would serve to minimize the risk to people. Therefore, impacts would be less-than- significant. j) Would the project potentially be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? According to maps prepared by the California Department of Conservation, the mountainous Project site is not in an area that is prone to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would result. XI. LAND USE Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 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? 16 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009, Flood Insurance Rate Map. 17 Association of bay Area Governments, 1995, Dam Failure Inundation Hazard map for Saratoga. 113 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 62 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? A Project would have a significant environmental impact if it allowed for development large enough or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier or other physical division within an established community. A typical example would be a project that involved creating a new continuous right-of-way, such as a roadway, which would divide a community and impede access between parts of the community. The proposed Project includes no such component. There are no residential uses that exist on the site. The residential uses that surround the property do not currently use the Project site for travel because there are no roads that currently exist on the site. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the construction of a public trail on the site. Since there are no established communities on the site and implementation of the Project would not serve to divide the communities that currently surround the site, these is no impact. b) Would the project 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? As discussed in the Project Description, the site is located within Santa Clara County. The Project site is designated as Hillsides in the County General Plan and zoned HS Hillside in the County Zoning Code. Under Section 2.20.010(C) of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the Hillside district, also known as the HS district, is to preserve mountainous lands unplanned or unsuited for urban development primarily in open space and to promote those uses which support and enhance a rural character, which protect and promote wise use of natural resources, and which avoid the risks imposed by natural hazards found in these areas. Permitted uses within the HS District zone include low intensity recreation and land in its natural state. The City’s General Plan designates the project area, which is located primarily within the City’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) but not the city limits, as Hillside Open Space (“OS-H”). Because these lands are outside the City limits, the County planning and zoning laws would apply. The OS-H designation would apply should the area ever be annexed to the City. The Hillside Open Space designation allows uses which support and enhance a rural character, promote the wise use of natural resources and avoid natural hazards. Uses include agriculture, mineral extraction, parks and low intensity recreational facilities, land in its natural state, wildlife refuges and very low intensity residential development. A small portion of the project area is located within the City limits in the Quarry Park. This land is designated Open Space-Outdoor Recreation. That designation applies to City or County parks. Only 114 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 63 recreational facilities (i.e. playground equipment, recreational courts, etc.), structures necessary to support the parks or structures of particular historic value are permitted in these areas. According to the Section 15-02.010 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, the purpose of the R-OS zone is “[t]o preserve hillside and mountainous land in its natural condition through the establishment of dedicated open space areas, and through environmentally sensitive low density residential use” and “[t]o promote those uses which support and enhance a rural character and preserve important resources such as forests, natural vegetation, watersheds, animal habitat, scenic beauty, recreational areas, open space and public access thereto.” One of the permitted uses within the R-OS zone is related to public park uses, which allows for public parks, trails, and open space. Therefore, since the Project would construct only a public trail maintaining the area in open space, the Project would be consistent with both the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, resulting in no impact. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District have collaborated to create the Santa Clara Valley Habitat conservation Plan. However, the Project site does not fall within the plan’s study area and since there are no other applicable habitat conservation plans, no impact would result from the Project. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the state? The Saratoga General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, notes that mineral resources exist in the vicinity of the Project site but states that these resources are primarily limited to sandstone and shale. The City’s General Plan does not identify significant mineral resources that exist within the city limits. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project would not propose any land use changes that could result in the loss of known mineral resources or substantially limit the availability of mineral resources over the long term. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on mineral resources. 115 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 64 b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? See response a) above. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As a result, no impact would occur. XIII. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? The Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance (Chapter VII: Control of Noise and Vibration) contains the following applicable sections: Sec. B11‐192. Exterior noise limits. (1) Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use. 116 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 65 (a) The noise standards for the various receiving land use categories as presented in Table 4.9‐7 shall apply to all such property within any zoning district. (b) No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the unincorporated territory of the county or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed: (i) The noise standard for that land use as specified in Table 4.9‐7 for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or (ii) The noise standard plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or (iii) The noise standard plus ten (10) dB for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (iv) The noise standard plus fifteen (15) dB for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (v) The noise standard plus twenty (20) dB or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time. (c) If the measured ambient level exceeds that permissible within any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five dB increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. (d) If the noise measurement occurs on a property adjacent to a different land use category, the noise level limit applicable to the lower land use category, plus five (5) dB, shall apply. (e) If for any reason the alleged offending noise source cannot be shut down, the ambient noise must be estimated by performing a measurement in the same general area of the source but at a sufficient distance such that the noise from the source is at least ten (10) dB below the ambient in order that only the ambient level be measured. If the difference between the ambient and the noise source is five (5) to ten (10) dB, then the level of the ambient itself can be reasonably determined by subtracting a one‐decibel correction to account for the contribution of the source. (2) Correction for Character of Sound: In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits set forth in table B11‐192 shall be reduced by five (5) dB. (Ord. No. NS‐517.18, 9‐22‐81; Ord. No. NS‐517.54, §§ 9, 10, 6‐8‐93) Table 1 below lists noise standards for various uses in the County Noise Ordinance (Ord. No. NS‐517.18, 9‐22‐81; Ord. No. NS‐517.54, §§ 9, 10, 6‐8‐93). The indoor standards apply to noise produced by exterior noise sources. 117 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 66 Table 1 County Exterior Noise Limits (Levels not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes in any hour) Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA) One‐ and Two‐Family 10:00 p.m.‐‐7:00 a.m. 45 Residential 7:00 a.m.‐‐10 p.m. 55 Multi-Family Dwelling 10:00 p.m.‐‐7:00 a.m. 50 Residential Public Space 7:00 a.m.‐‐10:00 p.m. 55 Commercial 10:00 p.m.‐‐7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m.‐‐10:00 p.m. 60 65 Light Industrial Any Time 70 Heavy Industrial Any Time 75 Sec. B11‐193. Interior noise standards. (1) Maximum Permissible Dwelling Interior Sound Levels: (a) The interior noise standards for multifamily residential dwellings as presented in Table 4.9‐8 shall apply, unless otherwise specifically indicated, within all such dwellings. County Interior Noise Standards Type of Land Use Time Interval Allowable Interior Noise Level (dBA) Multifamily dwelling 10:00 p.m.‐‐ 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m.‐‐10:00 p.m. 35 45 (b) No person shall operate or cause to be operated within a dwelling unit any source of sound or allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured inside a neighboring receiving dwelling unit to exceed: (i) The noise standard as specified in Table 4.9‐8 for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (ii) The noise standard plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (iii) The noise standard plus ten (10) dB or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time. (c) If the measured ambient level exceeds that permissible within any of the noise limit categories above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five‐dB increments in each category as appropriate to reflect said ambient noise level. (2) Correction for Character of Sound: In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum, or contains music or speech conveying information content, the standard limits set forth in table B11‐193 shall be reduced by five (5)dB. (Ord. No. NS‐517.18, 9‐22‐81) Sec. B11‐194. Prohibited acts. 2.6. Construction/demolition. 118 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 67 (a) Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between weekdays and Saturday hours of 7:00 pm and 7:00 am, or at any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the sound there from creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance. (b) Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed those listed in the following schedule: (i) Mobile equipment. Maximum noise levels for nonscheduled, intermittent, short‐term operation (less than 10 days) of mobile equipment: The Santa Clara County Code specifies the following related to helicopters: Sec. B11-154. - Prohibited acts (at § 14) Helicopters. Operating or permitting to be operated any helicopter which violates nighttime provisions of Section B11-152 or which causes a noise that exceeds 80 dBA during the day in residential. County Code Sec. B11-154 also specifies a 55 dBA maximum exterior noise not to be exceed for more than 30 mins in an hour. Additionally, the City of Saratoga’s General Plan Noise Element recognizes that the Big Basin Way segment of SR 9 adjacent to the Project site, has an existing DNL of 68 dB, setback 50 feet from the roadway. Implementation of the proposed project could have the following noise-related effects: 1) residents surrounding the project site could be exposed to short-term construction-related noise; 2) park users could be exposed to traffic noise from SR 9; and 3) residents surrounding the project site could be exposed to an incremental increase in ambient noise levels due to park use. Each of these potential noise impacts, and the relationship of each impact to standards set forth in the County’s Noise Ordinance, is discussed below. Construction Noise Impacts. Construction of the proposed project would involve minor earthwork and grading, and could involve the limited use of mini-excavator(s), mini dozer, motorized tote/wheelbarrow, ATV with trailer, chainsaw, hand tools, portable mixer, chain saws, and tree rigging. In addition, a helicopter may be necessary to transport bridge construction materials to the bridge locations. Construction of the proposed Project would extend over a period of 18-24 months. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site but would end once construction is completed. Site preparation, which includes vegetation removal, excavation and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. The maximum noise level for these pieces of equipment under normal conditions is approximately 85 dB at 50 feet.18 However, nearby residences would not be exposed to such a level of noise because noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 18 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 119 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 68 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Therefore, a sound as perceived at 200 feet from its source, would be about 12 dBA less loud than it would be at approximately 50 feet from the source. Additionally, topographic features of the site affect the attenuation of noise. As described in the Project description, helicopter noise would also be a component of construction. The proposed helicopter operation would be limited to use for delivery of bridge components during construction. The pickup and drop off points would be located more than 1500 feet from the nearest residences and from the winery buildings. Use of the helicopter if needed would be for a limited number of days (one to two days maximum) and for short durations during those days. According to the Helicopter Association International a helicopter flying at 500 feet produces noise of approximately 87 dB.19 If used, a helicopter would operate intermittently for a limited number of days to transport bridge components to a staging area and then deliver them to each construction area. Because nearest receptors are more than 1500 feet from the construction and staging areas, and because helicopter use would be limited, disturbance to area residents is expected to be less than significant. The County Noise Ordinance specifies that maximum noise levels from construction equipment is 75 dBA for mobile equipment (i.e., 7:00 am-7:00 pm) and 60 dBA for stationary equipment during the day. The closest noise sensitive receptors to the eastern terminus of the trail are located within 800 to 900 feet of site where grading would occur. At this distance, the residences would be exposed to construction noise levels from mobile equipment of up to 61 dBA Lmax. At the western terminus of the trail, the closest receptors would be located on the Domaine Eden winery property, which is within approximately one quarter mile of the trail. At this distance, visitors at the winery could experience construction noise levels of less than 60 dBA Lmax for the brief time that the final segment of the trail is being constructed. However, this level of construction noise in close proximity to the winery buildings would be intermittent and temporary (lasting only for a period of approximately one to two weeks) and would therefore be considered less than significant. Operation Noise Impacts. The proposed project is expected to modestly increase park usage, however park usage is not expected to generate substantial and on-going noise because the site would be used as a passive park with low-intensity uses. In addition, noise impacts on park users would be minimal due to the distance of passive recreational uses from SR 9 and intervening topography and vegetation. Landscape maintenance equipment is exempt from noise- limiting provisions. As a result, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts in relation to the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts from temporary construction noise may occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 mitigation measures would reduce the potential noise impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The Santa Clara County Municipal Code limits construction activities to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and prohibits construction on Sundays 19 https://hearinghealthmatters.org/lawandhearing/2011/helicopter-noise/ 120 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 69 and legal holidays. However, the City of Saratoga’s Noise Ordinance is more restrictive and limits construction activities to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Therefore, Project construction shall be limited to times specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance pursuant to Article 7-30 of the City’s Municipal Code. Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce future construction noise impacts associated with the proposed Project to a less-than-significant level. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. The nearest vibration-sensitive structures are residential buildings approximately 800 to 900 feet from the portions of the site where construction activities would occur. Vibration impacts can be in the form of damage to structures or can involve annoyance to nearby sensitive land uses. For the former, building damage is not a factor for normal projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Construction of the trail would not involve rock blasting, pile-driving, or heavy construction equipment, and vibration-induced structural damage would not occur. Regarding vibration annoyance, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criterion for perceptible levels of vibration during the daytime is 78 vibration velocity decibels (VdB).20 Vibration levels from heavy construction equipment would be limited due to the type of construction equipment that would be used within the Project site. Since Project construction activities would be limited by equipment type and occur for short durations, no significant vibration impact from exposure of persons to excessive levels of vibration would occur. In addition, Mitigation Measures NOI-1 would serve to reduce potential impacts resulting from construction. As a result, impacts from groundborne vibration and groundborne noise would be less-than-significant. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Noise impacts during the operational phase of the park would not cause substantial noise increases to nearby receptors from visitors, sporadic maintenance functions, or from Project-related traffic flows. As a result, noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Based on the limited duration of construction activities, scope of future construction activities, and the time-of-day constraints in the Noise Ordinance, included as Mitigation Measure NOI-1, impacts regarding substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity would be less than significant. 20 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 121 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 70 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels There are no public or private airports that are near the City of Saratoga. Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport is approximately 16 miles away. While aircraft associated with this facility may fly over Saratoga and be of concern to residents, the Project site is located well outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for this facility and, as such, there would be no impact. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? See response e) above. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and as a result, no impact would occur. XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed Project does not entail the development of residential housing nor would the Project result in the extension of roads or other infrastructure off site. Moreover, all of the infrastructure proposed (i.e., bridges at stream crossings) would be limited to use on site. Since there would be no direct or indirect population growth associated with the proposed Project, there would be no impact related to substantial population growth. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No housing units are located within the Project site. As a result, no impact would occur. 122 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 71 c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? There are currently no people residing on the Project site, therefore there are no people on the site to displace and the Project would have no impact. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks Other public facilities? a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Based on communications with Mac Bala, Deputy Fire Marshal of the Santa Clara County Fire Department, the extension of fire protection services to the Project site would not result in construction of new facilities or result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the connector trail.21 Therefore, no impact would occur. Police protection? Based on communications with Richard Urena, Captain of the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff, the extension of police protection services to the Project site would not result in construction 21 Personal communication between Emma Burkhalter and Mac Bala, Deputy Fire Marshal, Santa Clara County Fire Department, May 15, 2019. 123 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 72 of new facilities or result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the connector trail.22 Therefore, no impact would occur. Schools? As discussed above, the proposed Project would not include a residential component. As a result, the Project would not result in an increase in demand for school services, and the need for additional school facilities as a result of the proposed Project would not occur. No impact would occur. Parks? Implementation of the proposed Project would include the development of a connector trail from the Saratoga Quarry Park to the boundary of Sanborn County Park. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is intended to assess whether the proposed Project would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, all impacts of the Project on parks would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Other public facilities? There are no other facilities that would be adversely impacted by the proposed Project. Therefore no impact would occur. XVI. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the permanent population of Saratoga or Santa Clara County and therefore, the Project would not create a substantial additional demand on existing parks or recreational facilities such that the facilities would be substantially deteriorated. Instead, implementation of the proposed Project would increase recreational options in Saratoga and in 22 Personal communication between John Cherbone and Richard Urena, Captain, Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff, May 16, 2019. 124 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 73 the County, which could be considered a beneficial impact to recreation. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment? Implementation of the proposed Project would include the development of a connector trail from the City’s Quarry Park to the Sanborn County Park. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, all impacts of the Project on recreational facilities would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 125 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 74 a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? The proposed Project would generate a modest number of additional trips over existing conditions attributable to hikers and equestrians interested in using the new trail. During the construction phase of the Project, additional traffic would be generated by trucks associated with construction activities. During the operation phase, visitors to the park would generate additional trips getting to and from the park. Typically, trail users are most likely to use trails during non-peak hours on weekdays and on weekends. Given that the majority of the trips would occur during non-peak hours on weekdays and weekends, it is not expected that traffic generated by the Project would conflict with the effectiveness of the local roadway system, particularly considering that the segment of SR 9 adjacent to the Project site improved from Level of Service (LOS) C in 2006, to LOS B through 2012.23 Additionally, given the small number of vehicle trips generated by the Project, there would be a less-than-significant impact in relation to the level of service standards established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program.24 b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? See response a) above. As a result of the Project, a less-than-significant impact to the applicable congestion management program would occur. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? As discussed above in Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of any of the airports in the region. The closest public airport or public use airport to the Project site is the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. The airport is approximately 16 miles from the Project site. Since the Project would not include components that would have any impact on air traffic patterns and the closest airport is 16 miles away, the Project would not change air traffic patterns, and no impact would occur. 23 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2017, 2017 Congestion Management Program. 24 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2017, 2017 Congestion Management Program. 126 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 75 d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? The Project would not introduce any features along roadways or at intersections adjacent to the site that would constitute a design hazard, introduce incompatible uses or affect emergency access to the Project site. Project site users would use existing roadways and available access through the Saratoga Quarry Park. Therefore, there would be less-than-significant impact related to design features, incompatible uses, or emergency access. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? See response d) above. Vehicular access to the Project site would be from existing access points on Congress Springs Road. Emergency access to Quarry Park would not be altered as a result of the Project therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less-than-significant. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The Project site is located in an open space area on private land and has no direct connections to public transit or designated bicycle or pedestrian facilities on existing roadways. The proposed Project would involve efforts to create additional linkages in the regional trail network, which would serve to improve the performance of the existing transportation system and existing recreational facilities. As a result, the proposed Project would not adversely affect the performance of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place or object with cultural value to a California native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 127 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 76 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. The City has not received any request from California native American tribes asking to be notified of proposed projects in the City of Saratoga. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 21080.3.1, a formal consultation was not undertaken. The results of a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (“NWIC”) were used to inform the following analysis. i) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? The records search revealed that the State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory (“OHP HPD”) (which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places) lists no recorded buildings or structures adjacent to the proposed project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed project area. There is one recorded archaeological resources in the proposed project area (P-43-000374), a moderate potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources, and a moderate potential of identifying additional historic-period archaeological resources in the project area. As discussed in the Project Description, the proposed Project is limited to construction of a trail, construction of bridges to facilitate three stream crossings, and trail furniture, such as benches and signage. The ground disturbance would be minimal and largely limited to excavations for the trail and for bridge abutments. Therefore the potential for disturbance of unidentified underground resources would be limited. However, there is the potential that unrecorded underground tribal cultural resources could be encountered during trail and bridge construction. In the event that that tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, mitigation measures CULT-1 and CULT-2 as described in Section V of this Initial Study, would reduce potential impacts 128 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 77 related to a substantial change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource to a less-than-significant level. Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic features that are encountered during ground disturbance to less-than-significant levels. ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in a Native American Tribal resource determined by the lead agency, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. See response to XVIII. i) above. XIX. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 129 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 78 a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? As discussed above in Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project does not propose construction of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems. As a result, the Project would result in no impact in relation to wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b)Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Project would not involve provision of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Due to the nature of the Project, the modest increase in trail use is expected to result in a nominal increase in water demand within Quarry Park and would not require the construction or expansion of facilities. As a result, the Project would result in a no impact. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Project proposes to construct an unpaved trail and four bridge stream crossings. New stormwater drainage facilities would be limited to drainage dips installed on the trail to manage stromwater runoff. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on stormwater drainage facilities. d) Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The proposed project does not include use of a water supply. Trail users will have access to existing drinking fountains on the Saratoga Quarry Park site and no irrigation is proposed. Due to the nature of the Project, and the modest increase in trail use anticipated, the amount of water demand within the Project site is expected to be a nominal amount. As a result, it is expected that the Project would have sufficient water supplies available to meet the demand within the Project site. As a result, impacts would be less-than-significant. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. See response to a) above. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Trail users would make use of trash receptacles at Quarry Park. In accordance with the Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement between the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority and West Valley Collection and Recycling, LLC the designated disposal site for solid waste collected in the City of Saratoga is the Guadalupe Landfill at 15999 Guadalupe Mines Road in San Jose. The solid waste 130 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 79 facility permit on file for the Guadalupe Landfill lists the estimated closure date of the facility to be 2028. Additionally, it is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would substantially increase the volume of solid waste collected in Saratoga. Therefore, this facility would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs and a less-than- significant impact would result. g) Would the project not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Conformance with the requirements of the Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement between the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority and West Valley Collection and Recycling, LLC and permit SWIS NO 43-AN-0015 would ensure compliance with all federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and a less-than-significant impact would result. XX. WILDFIRE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As discussed in the Project Description above, the proposed Project is limited to construction of a trail, bridges to facilitate three stream crossings, and trail furniture, such as benches and signage. 131 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 80 Construction activities of the Project site would not impair emergency evacuation routes nor impact response to a wildfire in the Project area. There would be no impact and no mitigation is required. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? As discussed in section IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials above, the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibilities Areas map prepared by Cal Fire, the site is shown to be in a “high” Fire Hazard Severity Zone, where the categories are moderate, high, and very high. Because the Project is subject to the Quarry Park Master Plan, that Plan’s fire safety provisions, including bans on open fires and barbeque pits on site and complying with relevant City codes with respect to required access for fire protection services would serve to reduce potential impacts related to the risks from wildland fires. The area adjoining the Project site includes open woodland and heavily wooded residential areas. The development of the proposed trail would not entail the addition of residential units and would not serve to increase fire risk on or off site which could increase the risk to surrounding properties. Moreover, new structures on the Project site would be limited to retaining walls and bridges at stream crossings. People within the Project site would be temporary visitors, and as previously noted, trail regulations would ban open fires. As a result, the additional structures adjacent to wildlands would not be significant structures and the risk to people would be minimized by virtue of the visitors being temporary. Therefore, the Project would not increase the risk of wildland fire, new structures would be minor, visitors would be temporary, and elements of the proposed Project would reduce the risk of fire, the exposure of people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Related impacts would be less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would directly exacerbate fire risk. However, the bridges would require occasional maintenance to ensure the safety of the bridge crossings. This would involve checking and tightening fasteners, the condition of the wood, and the overall integrity of the bridge. This work would generally involve use of hand tools. In the event that segments of wood require replacement, a more intensive effort would be undertaken but this would not involve large equipment such as an excavator. This level of maintenance is not considered a substantial exacerbation of wildfire risk. There would be a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? As discussed above, the Project would construct a trail and new structures on the Project site would be limited to retaining walls and bridges at stream crossings. People within the Project site would be temporary visitors, and as previously noted, trail regulations would ban open fires. As a result, the 132 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 81 additional structures adjacent to wildlands would not be significant structures and the risk to people would be minimized by virtue of the visitors being temporary. Therefore, the Project would not increase the risk of wildland fire, new structures would be minor, visitors would be temporary, and elements of the proposed Project would reduce the risk of fire, the exposure of people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Related impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed above and in the Biological Resources Report, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the construction of a connector trail. The Project design minimizes impacts to biological resources to the degree practicable and includes mitigation measures to avoid impacts to biological resources and to mitigate impacts when avoidance isn’t feasible. Additionally, the Project includes historic preservation measures which would serve to protect the historical resources on the Project site. For these reasons, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact in this respect. 133 City of Saratoga Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector Initial Study Initial Study Checklist 82 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The development of a connector trail would not significantly contribute to any cumulative effect. As discussed above, the Project’s impact on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic would all be minimal so that any contribution to cumulative conditions would not be considerable. There are no other projects which in combination with the effects of this Project would result in a cumulatively considerable effect. A less-than-significant impact would result in this respect. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As discussed above, overall, the proposed Project would have a positive impact on human beings. With elements of the Project that would serve to enhance natural habitats and preserve historical resources, allowing for public access to the site would increase recreational opportunities in the area, reducing the demand on other recreational facilities in the area, and give the public access to the natural features of the site which were previously inaccessible. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts. 1131611.2 134 Attachment A Biological Resources Background Report 135 Attachment B Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Study 136 Attachment A Biological Resources Background Report 137 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report Project #4237-01 Prepared for: Emma Burkhalter City of Saratoga – Public Works 12777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 138 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report ii H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... ii Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................ iii Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................. iii Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................... iii List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................................................ iv Section 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Project Description and Location......................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Project Components ............................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2. Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Background Review .............................................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Site Visits ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Section 3. Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Federal ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Clean Water Act ....................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................................... 11 3.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ..................................................... 12 3.1.4 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ........................................................................................................ 12 3.2 State ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Clean Water Act Section 401/Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ................................... 12 3.2.2 California Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................................... 13 3.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................................................. 14 3.2.4 California Fish and Game Code ............................................................................................................ 15 3.3 Local ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 3.3.1 Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance .................................................................... 16 3.3.2 City of Saratoga Tree Ordinance ........................................................................................................... 17 Section 4. Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................................... 18 4.1 General Project Area Description ...................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Biotic Habitats ....................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Mixed Evergreen Forest ......................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2 Northern Coastal Scrub (Disturbed) .................................................................................................... 20 4.2.3 Mixed Riparian Forest ............................................................................................................................. 21 Section 5. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats ................................................................................... 24 5.1 Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................................................. 24 5.2 Special-Status Animal Species ............................................................................................................. 28 5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Habitats, and Vegetation Alliances ........................................... 29 Section 6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 39 6.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species ...................................................................................................... 39 6.1.1 Impacts on CRPR 1 or 2 Plants (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ........................................ 40 6.1.2 Impacts on CRPR 3 or 4 Plants (Less than Significant) .................................................................... 42 6.1.3 Impacts on the California Red-legged Frog (Less than Significant with Mitigation) .................... 43 6.1.4 Impacts on the Santa Cruz Black Salamander and California Giant Salamander, (Less than Significant with Mitigation) .................................................................................................................... 44 6.1.5 Impacts on the Western Pond Turtle (Less than Significant with Mitigation) .............................. 45 6.1.6 Impacts on the Olive-sided Flycatcher (Less than Significant) ........................................................ 45 6.1.7 Impacts on the San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 46 6.1.8 Impacts on Pallid Bats (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ........................................................ 47 139 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report iii H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 6.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities .................................................................................................... 49 6.2.1 Impacts on Mixed Evergreen Forest (Less than Significant) ............................................................ 49 6.2.2 Impacts on Mixed Riparian Forest (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ................................... 49 6.3 Impacts on Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 51 6.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement .......................................................................................................... 51 6.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies ................................................................................... 53 6.5.1 Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (No Impact) ............................................ 53 6.5.2 City of Saratoga Tree Ordinance (No Impact) .................................................................................... 54 6.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan ........................................ 54 6.7 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 54 Section 7. References ............................................................................................................................................... 56 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2. Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Habitat Map ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4. Special-Status Plant Species ............................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 5. Special-Status Animal Species ........................................................................................................................ 26 Tables Table 1. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence in the Study Area ................... 30 Appendices Appendix A. Plants Observed ................................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. Special-Status Plants Considered for Potential Occurrence ......................................................... B-1 Appendix C. Detailed Descriptions of Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Study Area........................................................................................................................................................ C-1 140 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report iv H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 List of Preparers Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., Senior Plant/Wetland Ecologist Ginger Bolen, Ph.D., Project Manager/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Craig Fosdick, M.S., Wildlife Ecologist Matthew Mosher, B.S., Plant Ecologist 141 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 5 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Section 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Description and Location The Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project would construct a 2.7 mile (mi) public recreational trail connection from Saratoga Quarry Park to Sanborn County Park in western Santa Clara County (“connector trail”) or (“trail”) (Figure 1). The project would occur on City-owned and privately-owned land, primarily on Assessor Parcel Number 503-73-003 (owned by the San Jose Water Company) with segments crossing through parcels 517-04- 011, 517-04-060, 517-04-061, and 503-48-045. The study area is bordered on the north by San Jose Water Company lands and State Route 9, to the east by Saratoga’s Quarry Park, to the south by San Jose Water Company lands, and to the west by privately held parcels and Sanborn County Park. The trail is envisioned to eventually connect to existing County trails within Sanborn County Park and to serve as part of a trail system linking trails in Saratoga to the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail to form a Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail. The proposed project is included as a proposed trail in the City of Saratoga General Plan (City of Saratoga 2007). The proposed alignment for the trail was selected based on a feasibility study conducted in May 2015 and based on input from City staff, the San Jose Water Company, and the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department staff. The proposed project would be developed as a multi-use facility, emphasizing the project site’s natural features, connections to adjacent open space, and opportunities for hiking and horse-back riding. The purpose of this report is to describe the biological resources present within the study area (Figure 2), as well as the potential impacts of the proposed project on biological resources. Where necessary, this report also describes measures necessary to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.2 Project Components The proposed project would implement a 4- to 5-foot-wide compacted earth trail for the newly constructed portion of the trail in the wooded area. The proposed trail would be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (MROSD’s) Trail Construction and Maintenance Guidelines. The trail design would conform to and incorporate the natural terrain; avoid long, straight reaches; incorporate out-slopes of 3-5%; incorporate frequent reverse grade dips; and incorporate climbing turns at switchbacks to the extent feasible. Construction of the trail would include implementation of small wood retaining walls, four clear span bridges at stream crossings, and revegetation along the trail as needed. The trail would be inspected by City staff annually to evaluate maintenance needs. Trail construction would begin at the eastern terminus at Quarry Park and end at the boundary of the private winery at the western boundary of the project site, where it connects to a County trail easement. Extension of the trail is envisioned to continue along the existing roadway and County trail easement that traverses the 142 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 6 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 winery, cross into Sanborn County Park lands, back through San Jose Water Company lands, and connect to the Sanborn County Park boundary. Access to the proposed connector trail would be from Quarry Park. The trail would be used for “out and back” hikes and would also connect to existing trails in Quarry Park. Access would also occur from Sanborn County Park on the west and would connect to existing trails in Sanborn County Park. At this time, however, existing trails in Sanborn County Park in the vicinity of the western terminus of the connector are closed to the public because they are in need of repair, but are planned to be improved for public use in 2020. Construction and public use of the portion of the trail located on San Jose Water Company property would occur pursuant to a public trail easement. The easement grants the City of Saratoga the right to design, locate, relocate, construct, reconstruct, repair, preserve, maintain, and replace, the trail and trail improvements within the easement area. The easement conditions the final designation of the trail alignment on the City’s completion of environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The easement permits the public to use the trail for walking, jogging, horseback riding, and other related recreational uses. Due to steep grades and other geographic constraints, most of the proposed trail would not be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. Trail accessibility information would be posted on all trail signage as well as Quarry Park’s circulation map and Sanborn County Park’s circulation map. Construction. Construction of the proposed trail would extend over a period of 18 to 24 months. Construction during the winter is anticipated to shorten the construction window and to minimize active construction when vegetation is most dense. It is anticipated that only 200 linear feet of trail would be under construction at any given time with permanent grading and erosion control installed as trail construction progresses. Permanent erosion control measures include installation of frequent drain dips to prevent concentration of trail runoff, as well as slash packing and mulch to treat exposed soils outside of the trail tread. Any project grading occurring after October 1 will be completed in dry weather or low rainfall (less than 0.5 inch per 24 hour period). A minimum of 200 linear feet of straw wattle and erosion control blankets would be available at the staging area or on site at all times. In the event of 25% chance of forecast inclement weather (greater than 0.5 inch of rainfall in 24 hour period), temporary erosion control measures (e.g. straw wattles, silt fence, erosion control blankets, etc.) would be installed to protect the section of trail that is currently under construction. A mini-excavator, mini dozer, and other small equipment would be used on the site for construction of the trail. If feasible, a helicopter may be used to deliver materials along the trail alignment to reduce carrying equipment over land. Minimal grading and excavation would occur as part of development of the proposed trail. Ground disturbance to construct the trail would generally extend to a maximum of 12 inches below ground surface along the trail and several feet at retaining walls and bridge abutments. Grading would be designed so that runoff is directed away from the trail. Existing vegetation, especially native trees and shrubs, would be preserved where possible. The project would include removal or pruning of some tree limbs adjacent to the trail alignment and would require the removal of approximately seven trees over 8 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). 143 1 0 10.5 Miles N:\Projects4200\4237-01\Reports\Fig 1 Vicinity Map.mxd trobinsonProject Location Figure 1. Vicinity Map April 2019Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report (4237-01) A L A M E D A S A N T A C L A R A S O L A N O C O N T R A C O S T A M A R I N S A N T A C R U Z S O N O M A N A P A S A N M A T E O S A N J O A Q U I N S A N F R A N C I S C O S A N B E N I T O Detail California 0 20 Miles Project Vicinity CC oonngg rr ee ss s s SSpprriinng g ss CCrreeeekk 144 Figure 2. Study Area April 2019Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report (4237-01)N:\Projects4200\4237-01\Reports\Fig 2 Biological Study Area.mxdLegend Study Area 800 0 800400 Feet 145 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 9 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 The eastern terminus of the trail staging area would be in the Quarry Park upper parking lot. The parking lot would provide parking for construction crew vehicles and storage areas for equipment and materials. Additional staging areas would be located at the intersection of the private winery roadway and the unused road to be converted to trail use, near the intersection of the service road located along the ridge top and a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) access road, and at the end of a second PG&E access road. Maintenance. The proposed trail would be maintained by the City of Saratoga. 146 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Section 2. Methods 2.1 Background Review Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed aerial images (Google Inc. 2019) of the project area; a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2019); and other relevant scientific literature and technical databases. Previous reports prepared for the project vicinity were also reviewed, including the Saratoga Quarry Park Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of Saratoga 2014). In addition, for plants, we reviewed all species on current California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B lists occurring in the Castle Rock Ridge, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles (Cupertino, San Jose West, Los Gatos, Laurel, Felton, Davenport, Big Basin, and Mindego Hill). Quadrangle-level results are not maintained for CRPR 3 and 4 species, so we also conducted a search of the CNPS Inventory records for these species occurring in Santa Clara County (CNPS 2019). In addition, we queried the CNDDB (2019) for natural communities of special concern that occur in the project region. For the purposes of this report, the “project vicinity” encompasses a 5-mi radius surrounding the study area. 2.2 Site Visits Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the study area (Figure 2) were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologist Craig Fosdick, M.S., and plant ecologist Matthew Mosher, B.S., on February 28, 2019. The purpose of these surveys was to provide a project-specific impact assessment for the proposed trail construction. Specifically, surveys were conducted to (1) assess existing biotic habitats and general plant and animal communities in the study area, (2) assess the potential for the project to impact special-status species and/or their habitats, and (3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats, such as waters of the U.S./State and riparian habitat. 147 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 11 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Section 3. Regulatory Setting Biological resources in the study area are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, as described below. 3.1 Federal 3.1.1 Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) functions to maintain and restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters of the U.S., which include, but are not limited to, tributaries to traditionally navigable waters currently or historically used for interstate or foreign commerce, and adjacent wetlands. Historically, in non-tidal waters, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water (OHW) mark, which is defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3. If there are wetlands adjacent to channelized features, the limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHW mark to the outer edges of the wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the U.S. are termed “isolated wetlands” and, depending on the circumstances, may be subject to USACE jurisdiction. In tidal waters, USACE jurisdiction extends to the landward extent of vegetation associated with salt or brackish water or the high tide line. The high tide line is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 as “the line of intersection of the land with the water’s surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide.” If there are wetlands adjacent to channelized features, the limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHW mark or high tide line to the outer edges of the wetlands. Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the state agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards [RWQCBs]) charged with implementing water quality certification in California. Project Applicability: Portions of the study area contain streams that are likely to be claimed as waters of the U.S. by the USACE. Any placement of fill within waters of the U.S. would likely be considered a significant impact under CEQA unless mitigated and would require a Section 404 permit from the USACE. 3.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects federally listed wildlife species from harm or “take”, which is broadly defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. An activity can be defined as “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under FESA only if they occur on federal lands. 148 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have jurisdiction over federally listed, threatened, and endangered species under FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected under FESA, but may become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project. Project Applicability: Suitable habitat for federally listed plant species does not occur in the study area. One federally listed animal species, the federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), may occur in the study area. Incidental take approval from the USFWS would be needed if take of this species were to occur. No critical habitat for any federal species occurs in the study area (USFWS 2019). 3.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act governs all fishery management activities that occur in federal waters within the United States’ 200-nautical-mile limit. The Act establishes eight Regional Fishery Management Councils responsible for the preparation of fishery management plans (FMPs) to achieve the optimum yield from U.S. fisheries in their regions. These councils, with assistance from NMFS, establish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in FMPs for all managed species. Federal agencies that fund, permit, or implement activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding potential adverse effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to recommendations by NMFS. Project Applicability: No EFH is present in the study area (NMFS 2019). 3.1.4 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. Section 703, prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA protects whole birds, parts of birds, and bird eggs and nests, and prohibits the possession of all nests of protected bird species whether they are active or inactive. An active nest is defined as having eggs or young, as described by the Department of the Interior in its April 16, 2003 Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. Nest starts (nests that are under construction and do not yet contain eggs) are not protected from destruction. Per a December 22, 2017 memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the MBTA’s prohibition on taking migratory birds and their active nests applies only to direct, purposeful actions, and does not include take incidental to other activities. Project Applicability: All native bird species that occur in the study area are protected under the MBTA. 3.2 State 3.2.1 Clean Water Act Section 401/Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The SWRCB works in coordination with the nine RWQCBs to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. Each RWQCB makes decisions related to water quality for its region, and may approve, with or without 149 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 13 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 conditions, or deny projects that could affect waters of the State. Their authority comes from the CWA and the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne). Porter-Cologne broadly defines waters of the State as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Because Porter-Cologne applies to any water, whereas the CWA applies only to certain waters, California’s jurisdictional reach overlaps and may exceed the boundaries of waters of the U.S. For example, Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ states that “shallow” waters of the State include headwaters, wetlands, and riparian areas. Moreover, the San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB’s Assistant Executive Director, has stated that, in practice, the RWQCBs claim jurisdiction over riparian areas. Where riparian habitat is not present, such as may be the case at headwaters, jurisdiction is taken to the top of bank. On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. In these new guidelines, riparian habitat is not specifically described as waters of the State but instead as important buffer habitats to streams that do conform to the State Wetland Definition. The Procedures describe riparian habitat buffers as important resources that may both be included in required mitigation packages for permits for impacts to waters of the State, as well as areas requiring permit authorization from the RWQCBs to impact. Pursuant to the CWA, projects that are regulated by the USACE must also obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit from the RWQCB. This certification ensures that the proposed project will uphold state water quality standards. Because California’s jurisdiction to regulate its water resources is much broader than that of the federal government, proposed impacts on waters of the State require Water Quality Certification even if the area occurs outside of USACE jurisdiction. Moreover, the RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the USACE does not. Under the Porter-Cologne, the SWRCB and the nine regional boards also have the responsibility of granting CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and Waste Discharge Requirements for certain point-source and non-point discharges to waters. These regulations limit impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats from a variety of urban sources. Project Applicability: Portions of the study area contain streams that may be claimed as waters of the State by the RWQCB, and the riparian banks of these streams would be considered important buffers. Such areas would fall under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco RWQCB, and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be required if any impacts on these waters would occur. 3.2.2 California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; California Fish and Game Code, Chapter 1.5, Sections 2050- 2116) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with CESA, the CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species (Fish and Game Code 2070). The CDFW regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals (i.e., “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFW, however, has interpreted “take” to include the “killing of a member of a species which is the proximate result of habitat modification.” 150 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 14 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Project Applicability: No suitable habitat for any state listed plant or animal species occurs in the study area. Thus, no state listed species are expected to be impacted by the project. 3.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is a state law that requires state and local agencies to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions and to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. CEQA requires the full disclosure of the environmental effects of agency actions, such as approval of a general plan update or the projects covered by that plan, on resources such as air quality, water quality, cultural resources, and biological resources. The State Resources Agency promulgated guidelines for implementing CEQA are known as the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 15380(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW or species that are locally or regionally rare. The CDFW has produced three lists (amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals) of “species of special concern” that serve as “watch lists”. Species on these lists are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. Thus, their populations should be monitored. They may receive special attention during environmental review as potential rare species, but do not have specific statutory protection. All potentially rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, are considered for environmental review per the CEQA Section 15380(b). The CNPS, a non-governmental conservation organization, has developed CRPRs for plant species of concern in California in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2019). The CRPRs include lichens, vascular, and non-vascular plants, and are defined as follows: CRPR 1A Plants considered extinct. CRPR 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. CRPR 2A Plants considered extinct in California but more common elsewhere. CRPR 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. CRPR 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list. CRPR 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list. The CRPRs are further described by the following threat code extensions: .1—seriously endangered in California; 151 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 15 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 .2—fairly endangered in California; .3—not very endangered in California. Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory protection, plants appearing as CRPR 1B or 2 are, in general, considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria, and adverse effects on these species may be considered significant. Impacts on plants that are listed by the CNPS as CRPR 3 or 4 are also considered during CEQA review, although because these species are typically not as rare as those of CRPR 1B or 2, impacts on them are less frequently considered significant. Compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires consideration of natural communities of special concern, in addition to plant and wildlife species. Vegetation types of “special concern” are tracked in Rarefind (CNDDB 2019). Further, the CDFW ranks sensitive vegetation alliances based on their global (G) and state (S) rankings analogous to those provided in the CNDDB. Global rankings (G1–G5) of natural communities reflect the overall condition (rarity and endangerment) of a habitat throughout its range, whereas S rankings reflect the condition of a habitat within California. If an alliance is marked as a G1–G3, all the associations within it would also be of high priority. The CDFW provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2019). Project Applicability: All potential impacts on biological resources will be considered during CEQA review of the project. This biological resources report assesses these impacts to facilitate project planning and CEQA review of the project by the City of Saratoga. Project impacts are discussed in Section 6 below. 3.2.4 California Fish and Game Code Ephemeral and intermittent streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue line streams on USGS maps, and watercourses with subsurface flows fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance may also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. A stream is defined in Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 1.72, as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and that supports fish and other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” Using this definition, the CDFW extends its jurisdiction to encompass riparian habitats that function as part of a watercourse. California Fish and Game Code Section 2786 defines riparian habitat as “lands which contain habitat which grows close to and which depends upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source.” The lateral extent of a stream and associated riparian habitat that would fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFW can be measured in several ways, depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife at risk. At minimum, the CDFW would claim jurisdiction over a stream’s bed and bank. In areas that lack a vegetated riparian corridor, CDFW jurisdiction would be the same as USACE jurisdiction. Where riparian habitat is present, the outer edge of riparian vegetation is generally used as the line of demarcation between riparian and upland habitats. 152 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 16 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1603, the CDFW regulates any project proposed by any person that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds.” California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires an entity to notify the CDFW of any proposed activity that may modify a river, stream, or lake. If the CDFW determines that proposed activities may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) must be prepared. The LSAA sets reasonable conditions necessary to protect fish and wildlife, and must comply with CEQA. The applicant may then proceed with the activity in accordance with the final LSAA. Specific sections of the California Fish and Game Code describe regulations pertaining to protection of certain wildlife species. For example, Code Section 2000 prohibits take of any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided by other sections of the code. The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFW. Raptors (i.e., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Bats and other non-game mammals are protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 4150, which states that all non-game mammals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed except as provided otherwise in the code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission. Activities resulting in mortality of non- game mammals (e.g., destruction of an occupied nonbreeding bat roost, resulting in the death of bats), or disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), may be considered “take” by the CDFW. Project Applicability: Portions of the study area contain streams and associated riparian habitat that may be regulated by the CDFW under California Fish and Game Code Section 1603. Such areas would fall under jurisdiction of CDFW, and a Section 1603 LSAA would be required if any impacts on these waters would occur. Most native bird, mammal, and other wildlife species that occur in the study area and in the immediate vicinity are protected by the California Fish and Game Code. 3.3 Local 3.3.1 Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance The County of Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, §C16.1 to §C16.17) serves to protect all trees having a trunk that measures 37.7 inches or more in circumference (12 inches in diameter) at the height of 4.5 ft above the ground or immediately below the lowest branch, whichever is lower, or in the 153 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 17 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 case of multi trunk trees a trunk size of 75.4 inches in circumference or more (24 inches or more in diameter). Trees of this size are protected within the following areas of the County: Parcels zoned “Hillsides” (3.0 ac or less); Parcels within a “-d” (Design Review) combining zoning district; Parcels within the Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plant Area In addition, any tree that because of its history, girth, height, species or other unique quality, is considered significant to the community or recommended by the historic commission can be designated as a heritage tree and, therefore, deemed protected and preserved. Santa Clara County requires that a replanting or revegetation plan be submitted for all trees to be removed (County Code, §C16.7 (e)). If the trees to be removed are native species, then replacement by the same species is requested if feasible. For non-native species, the County Planning Department may determine the species for planting. All replacement tree plantings must use at least five-gallon stock. Project Applicability: The study area, which falls within unincorporated Santa Clara County, is zoned “Hillsides”; however, all the parcels are greater than 3 ac in size. Thus, none of the trees within these parcels are considered protected trees. Therefore, no tree removal permit would be required for parts of the study area that fall within unincorporated Santa Clara County. 3.3.2 City of Saratoga Tree Ordinance According to the City of Saratoga Municipal Code §15-50.050, except as otherwise provided in §15-50.060, it is unlawful for any person to remove, damage, prune, or encroach upon, or cause to be removed, damaged, pruned, or encroached upon any protected tree in the City without first having obtained a tree removal, pruning or encroachment permit issued pursuant to this Article and authorizing the proposed action. A protected tree shall consist of any of the following: Any native tree having a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6.0 inches or greater Any other tree having a DBH of 10.0 inches or greater. Any street tree, as defined in Section 15-50.020(v), regardless of size. Any heritage tree, as defined in Subsection 15-50.020(1) regardless of size. Any tree required to be planted or retained as a condition of any approval granted under this Chapter or Chapter 14 of this Code. Any tree required to be planted as a replacement, as provided in Section 15-50.170 of this Article. (Amended by Ord. 226 § 2 (part), 2003) Project Applicability: While most of the study area is located within unincorporated Santa Clara County, the portion of the study area within Quarry Park is located within the City of Saratoga boundary. Project construction may necessitate the removal of protected trees. However, the City’s Tree Ordinance applies only to private development projects. Therefore, a permit would not be required. 154 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 18 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Section 4. Environmental Setting 4.1 General Project Area Description The approximately 6.29-ac study area is located in Saratoga in western Santa Clara County. It is located on the south side of Saratoga Creek and California State Route 9, primarily within the lower Congress Springs Creek drainage (a tributary to Saratoga Creek). The study area is located within the Castle Rock Ridge, California 7.5- minute USGS quadrangle on the northern flank of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The area is characterized by steep mountainous terrain dissected by narrow, steep sided V-shaped ravines and stream valleys. Natural slopes range from less than 20% gradient along gently sloping ridgetops and midslope benches to more than 80% along local steep streamside slopes and steep headwall swales. Hillsides are underlain by a ser ies of large-scale deep-seated bedrock landslides, several of which appear periodically active. The steep slopes that characterize much of the area are also subject to shallow debris slide and debris flow landslide processes. Small debris fans are found at the mouths of many of the steep drainages. Elevations in the study area range from 845 ft near Quarry Park to over 1,630 ft along the ridge top. Two soils types are present within the study area: (1) Katykat-Mouser-Sanikara complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, and (2) Sanikara-Mouser-Rock outcrop complex, 50 to 75 percent slopes (NRCS 2019). 4.2 Biotic Habitats Reconnaissance-level surveys identified three habitat types in the study area: mixed evergreen forest (6.18 ac), northern coastal scrub (disturbed) (0.08 ac), and mixed riparian forest (0.03 ac) (Figure 3). These habitats are described in detail below. Plant species observed during the reconnaissance survey are listed in Appendix A. 4.2.1 Mixed Evergreen Forest Vegetation. Mixed evergreen forest (Photo 1) is the dominant vegetation type throughout the study area. The canopy layer consists of abundant California bay (Umbellularia californica), with a significant, although less dominant, component of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) individuals. Generally, the higher elevation forest within the study area contains a higher component of Douglas fir, while in middle elevations the canopy mostly consists of California bay. Some coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is also present within the canopy, however its extent is fairly limited and it is most prevalent in the lower elevation portions of the study area. Owing to the dense canopy, understory development within this habitat is generally minimal and consists of sparse California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), California wood fern (Dryopteris arguta), and California rose (Rosa californica). 155 CCoonnggrreessssSSpprriinnggssCCrreeeekkCC oo nn gg rr ee ssssSSpprriinn gg ssCCrreeeekk Figure 3. Habitats and Impacts Map April 2019Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report (4237-01)N:\Projects4200\4237-01\Reports\Fig 3 Hab and Impacts.mxdLegend Study Area (6.29 ac) Streams Habitat Mixed Evergreen Forest(6.18 ac) Mixed Riparian Forest(0.03 ac) Northern Coastal Scrub(Disturbed)(0.08 ac) 325 0 325162.5 Feet 156 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 20 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Wildlife. Mixed evergreen forests produce mast crops that are an important food source for many birds and mammals. Birds such as the Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), dark- eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), hairy woodpecker (Dryobates villosus), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), and Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii) are year-round residents in evergreen forest habitat. Many additional species of birds, including the Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), Cassin’s vireo (Vireo cassinii), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), and western screech-owl (Megascops kennicottii), may nest here. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a California species of special concern, are common in the thick understory of oak-dominated forests, and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), California mice (Peromyscus californicus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), native western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), and nonnative fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) will also occur there. Bats, including the California myotis (Myotis californicus) and long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), may roost and forage in this closed- canopy forest. Reptiles found in adjacent coastal scrub and mixed woodland habitats will occur regularly in this habitat, and common amphibians including the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) and California newt (Taricha torosa) occur here as well. 4.2.2 Northern Coastal Scrub (Disturbed) Vegetation. The vegetation in this habitat type is regularly mowed and maintained by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in order to prevent interference and reduce fire risk from the overhanging high voltage transmission lines. Thus, the vegetation here is dominated by shrub species that do not grow tall enough to reach the transmission lines’ exclusion envelope (Photo 2). These shrub species are Photo 1. Mixed evergreen forest. Photo 2. Transmission line corridor looking down-canyon toward State Route 9. 157 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 21 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 predominately black sage (Salvia mellifera), yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Low growing herbaceous vegetation occurs in the interstitial areas between mature shrubs, and is dominated by the native bunchgrass blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus) and the non-native forb Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus). Wildlife. The transmission line corridor does not provide especially good habitat for wildlife, as it is a relatively narrow corridor dominated by chaparral species. However, most species associated with the mixed evergreen forest will also use the edge of this land use type. Steller’s jays, California scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica), dark- eyed juncos, and Bewick’s wrens are all expected to forage in the transmission line corridor. Raptors such as the American kestrel (Falco sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) are also likely to forage in the open habitat of the transmission line. Common reptiles, such as the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), may also occur here. 4.2.3 Mixed Riparian Forest Vegetation. Within the study area, mixed riparian forest occurs at each of the four proposed stream crossings (Photo 3). The vegetation composition of this habitat type is similar to the adjoining mixed evergreen forest and is similar at all four crossings, mainly varying in width and understory vegetation development. Large California bay individuals grow within the banks of the streams and overhang the stream itself, contributing allochthonous input to the channel (e.g., leaves that fall or are washed into the water and branches and trees that topple into the stream). Understory vegetation is more dense and abundant than in the mixed evergreen forest, although the composition is very similar and is dominated by California blackberry, California wood fern, and California rose. The most western and highest elevation stream in the study area is a small unnamed ephemeral tributary that has no connection to groundwater and likely only flows during and immediately following moderate to substantial rain events. This stream has short and narrow banks, owing to its low flows. Moving downhill and eastward, the next stream encountered is an unnamed intermittent stream which likely has a seasonal connection to groundwater and runs throughout the winter in most years. This stream has substantial banks, and the channel at its deepest has approximately 10 ft of relief from streambed to top of bank. The next stream eastward is Congress Springs Creek, the most substantial Photo 3. Mixed riparian forest along Congress Springs Creek. 158 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 22 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 stream in the study area. Congress Springs Creek flows through a fairly wide alluvial terrace, carrying substantial flows down to its intersection with Saratoga Creek. Congress Springs Creek likely flows throughout the winter, and may flow into summer following particularly wet winters. The last creek, at the lowest elevation and in the eastern portion of the study area, is an unnamed intermittent creek similar to the intermittent creek described above. While this creek flows consistently during the winter, it likely dries quickly following the end of the rainy season. Wildlife. Riparian habitats in California generally support exceptionally rich animal communities and contribute disproportionately to landscape-level species diversity. The presence of seasonal or year-round water and abundant invertebrate fauna provide foraging opportunities and the diverse habitat structure provides cover and breeding opportunities for many species. The riparian forest in the study area is of moderate quality and provides cover and foraging habitat for a wide variety of terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., amphibians, reptiles, and mammals), as well as several functional groups of birds including insectivores (e.g., warblers, flycatchers), seed- eaters (e.g., finches), and raptors. Cavity-nesters (e.g., swallows and woodpeckers) are also expected to nest in this habitat due to the presence of large, mature trees with cavities. Several species of amphibians and reptiles likely occur in the riparian habitat in the study area. Leaf litter, downed tree branches, low-growing forbs, and fallen logs provide cover for the California slender salamander, arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris), ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii), California newt, western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), and Pacific treefrog (Hyliola regilla). Reptile species found in this habitat include the western fence lizard, western skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula). The occasional western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a native species and California species of special concern, may also occur here, especially in Congress Springs Creek. Among the species of birds that use the riparian forest habitat within the study area for breeding are the Pacific- slope flycatcher, warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), California scrub-jay, and bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus). Limited nesting habitat for smaller raptors, such as the Cooper’s hawk and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), occurs in some of the larger trees here; however, no existing nests of raptors were observed in this habitat during the site visit. Black phoebes (Sayornis nigricans) may forage within this habitat, and may also nest. Green herons (Butorides virescens) and belted kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon) forage in these waters, and insectivorous birds forage aerially on insects over rivers and streams. Small mammals, such as the ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus), broad-footed mole (Scapanus latimanus), native western gray squirrel, and nonnative fox squirrel may use the riparian forest for breeding and foraging. No nests of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat were observed in this habitat during reconnaissance-level surveys, although woodrats inhabiting adjacent habitats likely forage here. Medium-sized mammals such as the raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and nonnative opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are also present in this habitat. Mule deer are common in the surrounding habitats and use riparian areas for access to water and foraging. Several species of bats, including 159 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 23 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 the Yuma bat (Myotis yumanensis) and Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), forage over the riparian habitats. Congress Springs Creek provides habitat for native fish species such as the hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), river sculpin (Cottus gulosus), and California roach (Lavinia symmetricus) (PISCES 2019). The tributaries to Congress Springs Creek, as described above, are unlikely to provide habitat for fish species, except during the rainy season, when smaller individuals may disperse upstream. 160 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 24 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Section 5. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are protected by state, federal, or local governments as “threatened, rare, or endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of the environmental review of the project, special-status species have been defined as described below. Impacts on these species are regulated by some of the federal, state, and local laws and ordinances described in Section 3.0 above. For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are: Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species. Listed by the CNPS as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4. For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are: Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species. Designated by the CDFW as a California species of special concern. Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species (fully protected birds are provided in Section 3511, mammals in Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050, and fish in Section 5515). Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that potentially occur in the study area was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists as described in Section 2.1 above. Figure 4 depicts CNDDB records of special-status plant species in the general vicinity of the study area and Figure 5 depicts CNDDB records of special-status animal species. These generalized maps show areas where special-status species are known to occur or have occurred historically. 5.1 Special-Status Plant Species The CNPS (2019) and CNDDB (2019) identify 86 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the nine USGS quadrangles containing or surrounding the study area for CRPR 1 or 2 species, or in Santa Clara County for CRPR 3 and 4 species. Eighty-one of those potentially occurring special-status plant species were determined to be absent from the study area for at least one of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range on the study area; and/or (4) the species is considered 161 Santa Clara CountySanta Clara County Santa Cruz CountySanta Cruz County San Mateo CountySan Mateo County robust spineflowerrobust spineflower Congdon's tarplantCongdon's tarplant minute pocket mossminute pocket moss Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita robust spineflowerrobust spineflowerarcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow hairless popcornflowerhairless popcornflower Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanita Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanita saline cloversaline clover Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons San Francisco collinsiaSan Francisco collinsia Santa Cruz cloverSanta Cruz clover slender silver mossslender silver moss Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Methuselah's beard lichenMethuselah's beard lichen Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Dudley's lousewortDudley's lousewort Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower Mt. Hamilton fountain thistleMt. Hamilton fountain thistle fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Toren's grimmiaToren's grimmia Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Ben Lomond spineflowerBen Lomond spineflower white-flowered rein orchidwhite-flowered rein orchid fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya Santa Clara red ribbonsSanta Clara red ribbons Choris' popcornflowerChoris' popcornflower woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita bent-flowered fiddleneckbent-flowered fiddleneck smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow Figure 4. CNDDB Special-Status Plant Species 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles N:\Projects4200\4237-01\Reports\Fig 4 CNDDB Plant.mxdLegend Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Project Location Plants General Area Terrestrial Communities 5-mile Radius Source: H. T. Harvey & Associates;CNDDB 2019 April 2019Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report (4237-01) CNDDB Records 162 Santa Clara CountySanta Clara County Santa Cruz CountySanta Cruz County San Mateo CountySan Mateo County yellow railyellow railCrotch bumble beeCrotch bumble bee western bumble beewestern bumble beeobscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee western bumble beewestern bumble bee hoary bathoary bat northern California legless lizardnorthern California legless lizard long-eared owllong-eared owl hoary bathoary bat obscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee obscure bumble beeobscure bumble bee Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander pallid batpallid bat Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS Zayante band-winged grasshopperZayante band-winged grasshopper marbled murreletmarbled murrelet steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS marbled murreletmarbled murrelet foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frogCalifornia giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander American badgerAmerican badger marbled murreletmarbled murrelet steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPScoho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamanderAmerican badgerAmerican badger steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat coho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander American badgerAmerican badger Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPScoho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU white-tailed kitewhite-tailed kite foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog marbled murreletmarbled murrelet marbled murreletmarbled murrelet steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPScoho salmon - central California coast ESUcoho salmon - central California coast ESU An isopodAn isopod foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog American badgerAmerican badger Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat purple martinpurple martin foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog western pond turtlewestern pond turtle California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander American badgerAmerican badger Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander burrowing owlburrowing owl American badgerAmerican badger Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Yuma myotisYuma myotis red-bellied newtred-bellied newt American badgerAmerican badger burrowing owlburrowing owl marbled murreletmarbled murrelet marbled murreletmarbled murrelet marbled murreletmarbled murrelet marbled murreletmarbled murrelet unsilvered fritillaryunsilvered fritillary unsilvered fritillaryunsilvered fritillary western pond turtlewestern pond turtle California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamanderred-bellied newtred-bellied newt pallid batpallid bat Cooper's hawkCooper's hawk red-bellied newtred-bellied newt American badgerAmerican badger California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander Santa Cruz black salamanderSanta Cruz black salamander San Francisco dusky-footed woodratSan Francisco dusky-footed woodrat North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River N. Central Coast Calif. Roach/Stickleback/Steelhead StreamN. Central Coast Calif. Roach/Stickleback/Steelhead Stream North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach RiverNorth Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLFCRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS Figure 5. CNDDB Special-Status Wildlife Species 1.2 0 1.20.6 Miles N:\Projects4200\4237-01\Reports\Fig 5 CNDDB Animal.mxdLegend Critical Habitat Project Location 5-mile Radius Specific Location General Area Approximate Location Wildlife General Area Aquatic CNDDB Records Source: H. T. Harvey & Associates;CNDDB 2019 Note: CTS = California Tiger Salamander,CRLF = California Red-legged Frog April 2019Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report (4237-01) Critical Habitat 163 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 27 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 extirpated. Appendix B lists these plants along with the basis for the determination of absence. Suitable habitat, edaphic requirements, and an appropriate elevation range were determined to be present in the study area for five plant species: Santa Clara red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa), bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), woodland woolythreads (Monolopia gracilens), and white-flowered rein orchid (Piperia candida). These species are discussed in detail below. Santa Clara red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 4.3. Santa Clara red ribbons is an annual herb in the evening-primrose family (Onagraceae) that blooms from May to June, and rarely as early as April or as late as July, depending on the microsite and annual climactic conditions. This species occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats in San Francisco Bay Area foothills at an elevational range of approximately 295 to 4,950 ft. and is endemic to Alameda and Santa Clara Counties (CNPS 2019), although older records exist from Santa Cruz County. A historical CNDDB occurrence, #16, is mapped within the study area and its herbarium label attributes its location to “Congress Springs”. Numerous other historical occurrences are located within the project vicinity on the east side of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and include CNDDB Occurrence #15, #18, and #17. The mixed riparian forest, northern coastal scrub, and openings in mixed evergreen forest habitats in the study area provide potential habitat for Santa Clara red ribbons. Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Bent-flowered fiddleneck is an annual herb in the borage family (Boraginaceae) that blooms from March to June. It inhabits cismontane woodland, coastal bluff scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations from 10 to 1,640 ft. Bent-flowered fiddleneck occurs or has been known to occur in Alameda, Contra Costa, Colusa, Lake, Marin, Napa, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, Sonoma, and Yolo Counties. It is known from 86 occurrences in the North and Central Coast Ranges (CNPS 2019). In the study area, grassy openings in mixed evergreen forest between Quarry Park and the most eastward stream crossing provides suitable habitat for bent-flowered fiddleneck. Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.1. Loma Prieta hoita is a perennial herb in the legume family (Fabaceae) that blooms from May to October. It typically grows in mesic areas with serpentinite features in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and riparian woodlands at elevations between 98 and 2,822 ft. It occurs in 11 USGS quadrangles in Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties, and is believed extirpated from Alameda County. There are 33 presumed extant populations within these areas (CNPS 2019). CNDDB Occurrence #19 occurs approximately 4 mi to the south of the study area. Soil types within the study area are similar to soils underlying other populations of Loma Prieta hoita on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and include the Katykat-Mouser-Sanikara complex, Mouser-Katykat-Sanikara complex, and Sanikara-Mouser-Rock outcrop complex. In the study area, mixed riparian forest and mesic areas of mixed evergreen forest provide suitable habitat for Loma Prieta hoita. Woodland woolythreads (Monolopia gracilens). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Woodland woollythreads is an annual herb in the composite family (Asteraceae) and 164 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 28 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 blooms from March through July, although in some scenarios the bloom may begin in February (CNPS 2019). The species occurs in broadleafed upland forest openings, chaparral openings, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest openings, and valley and foothill grassland at elevations from 328 through 3,936 ft. Woodland woollythreads is a serpentine indicator (Safford 2005) and is often, though not always, found on serpentine soils. The range of the species includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and San Mateo Counties. In the study area, the northern coastal scrub, as well as the mixed evergreen forest between Quarry Park and the most eastward stream crossing provides suitable habitat for woodland woollythreads. White-flowered rein orchid (Piperia candida). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. White-flowered rein orchid is a perennial herb in the orchid family (Orchidaceae) that blooms from May through September. This species occurs in broadleaved upland forests, lower montane coniferous forests, and North Coast coniferous forests at an elevation range of approximately 99 to 4,325 ft. This species is sometimes found on serpentinite substrates, although it is not a strict edaphic requirement (Safford 2005). White-flowered rein orchid is known from 46 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, San Mateo, Sonoma, and Trinity Counties, as well as in Oregon and possibly Washington states. This species may flower infrequently in some locations, and identification from herbarium materials is very difficult, two factors that make a rarity rating difficult to determine (CNPS 2019). In the study area, mixed evergreen forest and mixed riparian forest provide suitable habitat for white-flowered rein orchid. 5.2 Special-Status Animal Species The legal status and likelihood of occurrence in the study area of special-status animal species known to occur, or potentially occurring, in the project region are presented in Table 1. Most of the special-status species listed in Table 1 are not expected to occur in the study area because it lacks suitable habitat, is outside the known range of the species, and/or is isolated from the nearest known extant populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat. Animal species not expected to occur in the study area for these reasons include the Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), long-eared owl (Asio otus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). The Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), is considered California species of special concern and may occur in the study area as a nonbreeding transient, forager, or migrant but is not expected to breed here. Because this species is 165 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 29 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 only considered a species of special concern when nesting, it is not a “special-status species” when it occurs as a nonbreeding visitors to the study area, and is not discussed further in this document. The western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) is considered a species of special concern year-round and may occasionally occur in the study area as a nonbreeding migrant but it is not known or expected to breed, to occur regularly, or to occur in large numbers in the study area. The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a California species of special concern, is not expected to breed in the study or to occur regularly or in large numbers due to a lack of suitable roosting habitat. Seven special-status animal species, the California red-legged frog, California giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus), Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus niger), western pond turtle, olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat have the potential to occur, or are known to occur, in the study area. Expanded descriptions for each of these species are provided in Appendix C. 5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Habitats, and Vegetation Alliances Natural communities have been considered part of the Natural Heritage Conservation triad, along with plants and animals of conservation significance, since the state inception of the Natural Heritage Program in 1979. The CDFW determines the level of rarity and imperilment of vegetation types, and tracks sensitive communities in its Rarefind database (CNDDB 2019). Global rankings (G) of natural communities reflect the overall condition (rarity and endangerment) of a habitat throughout its range, whereas state (S) rankings reflect the condition of a habitat within Natural communities are defined using NatureServe’s standard heritage program methodology as follows (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2012): G1/S1: Critically imperiled G2/S2: Imperiled G3/S3: Vulnerable. G4/S4: Apparently secure G5/S4: Secure In addition to tracking sensitive natural communities, the CDFW also ranks vegetation alliances, defined by repeating patterns of plants across a landscape that reflect climate, soil, water, disturbance, and other environmental factors (Sawyer et al. 2009). If an alliance is marked G1-G3, all of the vegetation associations within it will also be of high priority (CDFW 2019). The CDFW provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s (VegCAMP) currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2019). 166 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 30 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Table 1. Special-Status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence in the Study Area Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area Federal or State Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) FT Native grasslands on serpentine soils. Larval host plants are Plantago erecta and/or Castilleja sp. Absent. Serpentine soils and the associated host plants do not occur in the study area. Determined to be absent. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) FT, CSSC Spawns in large river systems such as the Sacramento River; forages in nearshore oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries. Absent. The streams within the study area are tributary to Saratoga Creek and there is an impassable barrier to upstream movement of anadromous fish at the confluence of Saratoga Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek (Leidy et al. 2005), well downstream of the study area. This species is not known to occur in South Bay streams. Determined to be absent. Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) FT Cool streams with suitable spawning habitat and conditions allowing migration between spawning and marine habitats. Absent. The streams within the study area are tributary to Saratoga Creek. Saratoga Creek is known to have had a historical steelhead run (Leidy et al. 2005). Although potentially suitable aquatic habitat may be present in the study area, there is an impassable barrier to upstream movement of anadromous fish at the confluence of Saratoga Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek (Leidy et al. 2005), well downstream of the study area. Determined to be absent. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) FT, ST Vernal or temporary pools in annual grasslands or open woodlands. Absent. No suitable habitat is present in the study area. Further, populations have been extirpated from portions of Santa Clara County due to habitat loss, and the species is now considered absent from the project vicinity, including the study area. The closest occurrence in the project vicinity is adjacent to the southern edge of Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, which is approximately 4.3 mi north of the study area (CNDDB 2019). Determined to be absent. 167 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 31 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) FE, SE Prefer densely vegetated freshwater habitats. May use upland burrows for aestivation. Absent. The project is outside of the known range of the species. Determined to be absent. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) FT, CSSC Streams, freshwater pools, and ponds with emergent or overhanging vegetation. Absent as Breeder. Congress Springs Creek and its drainages are relatively high gradient streams and emergent and low overhanging vegetation is generally absent. Thus, red- legged frogs are not expected to breed in the study area. Nevertheless, there is a recent record from Saratoga Creek, approximately 0.3 mi from the study area (CNDDB 2019), and potentially suitable breeding habitat has been identified in Quarry Park at the northern end of the project alignment (i.e., within dispersal distance) (City of Saratoga 2014). Thus, because the streams and riparian habitat in the study area provide ostensibly suitable foraging and dispersal habitat, non-breeding individuals may occur in the study area. California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) FE, SE, SP Salt marshes characterized by large extents of saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina spp.) or pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), with well- developed tidal channels. Absent. Salt marsh habitat is not present on or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent. California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) ST, SP Breeds in fresh, brackish, and tidal salt marsh. Absent. Salt marsh habitat is not present on or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent. Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) FT, CSSC Sandy beaches on marine and estuarine shores and salt pans in Bay saline managed ponds. Absent. Suitable habitat for the western snowy plover is not present on or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent. California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) FE, SE, SP Nests along the coast on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates. In the South Bay, nests in salt pans and on an old airport runway. Forages for fish in open waters. Absent. Suitable habitat for the California least tern is not present on or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent. 168 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 32 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) ST Nests near fresh water in dense emergent vegetation. Absent. Suitable aquatic habitat with dense emergent vegetation is not present in the study area. Determined to be absent. Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) FE, SE, SP Salt marsh habitat dominated by common pickleweed or alkali bulrush. Absent. Salt marsh habitat is not present on or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent. Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) CSSC, SC Partially shaded shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate. Occurs in a variety of habitats in coast ranges. Absent. Ostensibly suitable habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog is present in the study area, and there are several historical records of this species from the Saratoga Creek corridor, immediately adjacent to the study area (CNDDB 2019). However, there are no recent records of this species from the project vicinity (CNDDB 2019), and it is considered extirpated from the project vicinity. Determined to be absent. Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) FE, SE, SP Salt marsh habitat dominated by common pickleweed or alkali bulrush. Absent. Salt marsh habitat is not present on or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent. California Species of Special Concern California giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus) CSSC Moist forests and riparian zones in or near clear, cold streams or seeps. May be Present. This species is found in the Santa Cruz Mountains and foothills, typically in moist forests and riparian zones in or near streams or seeps, such as those present throughout the study area. There are numerous records, historical and recent, in the project vicinity (CNDDB 2019). Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus niger) CSSC Moist forests and riparian zones in or near clear, cold streams or seeps. Present. This species is found in the Santa Cruz Mountains and foothills, typically in moist forests and riparian zones in or near streams or seeps, such as those present throughout the study area. There are numerous records, both historical and recent, in the project vicinity, including a historical record from Congress Springs Canyon within the study area (CNDDB 2019). 169 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 33 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) CSSC Permanent or nearly permanent water in a variety of habitats. Absent as Breeder. Streams within the study area provide only marginal quality habitat due to the paucity of open water and basking sites. Therefore, the species is not expected to use the study area for nesting. However, small numbers of western pond turtles may use the study area (especially Congress Springs Creek) for dispersal. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) CSSC Open grasslands and ruderal habitats with suitable burrows, usually those made by California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Absent. The absence of extensive grasslands on or near the study area precludes this species presence. The closest known records are of wintering birds at the Oka Ponds in Campbell, on the valley floor, 5 mi from the study area, and at the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, 9.5 mi from the study area (CNDDB 2019; Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019). Determined to be absent. Long-eared owl (Asio otus) CSSC (nesting) Riparian bottomlands with tall, dense willows (Salix spp.) and cottonwood (Populus fremontii) stands. In the Santa Cruz Mountains, also occurs in dense live oak and California Bay woodlands along upland streams; forages primarily in adjacent open areas. Absent. The long-eared owl is uncommon in the Santa Cruz Mountains in appropriate habitat, but it is relatively rare and very secretive (CNNDB 2019; Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019). The closest records to the study area are 6.1 mi north-northwest in the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. Grasslands required by this species as foraging habitat are not present in the study area or adjacent areas. Determined to be absent. 170 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 34 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi) CSSC (nesting) Nests in snags in coastal coniferous forests or, occasionally, in chimneys; forages aerially. Absent as Breeder. In western Santa Clara County, known to nest in chimneys and may nest in snags in coniferous forest (Rottenborn 2007). Snags in mixed woodland habitat in the study area provide ostensible nesting habitat for this species, but Vaux’s swifts are not known to nest in mixed woodlands in Santa Clara County. May forage aerially over the site. Because this species is only considered special-status when nesting, individuals would not be considered special-status when they occur on the site as a migrant. Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) CSSC (nesting) Nests in dense stands of willow and other riparian habitat. Absent. Although riparian woodlands are present in the study area, they are composed primarily of California bay trees. Dense stands of cottonwood and willow trees, which this species typically uses as nesting and foraging habitat, are absent from the study area. Determined to be absent. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) CSSC (nesting) Breeds in mature forests with open canopies, along forest edges in more densely vegetated areas, in recently burned forest habitats, and in selectively harvested landscapes May be Present. The riparian and mixed evergreen habitats in the study area provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. The species is known to nest in similar habitats in the vicinity (Bousman 2007) and is often detected in nearby parks during the nesting season (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019). Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) CSSC (nesting) Nests in tall shrubs and dense trees; forages in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats. Absent. Open habitats in the study area are too restricted and too isolated from vast expanses of open habitat elsewhere to support this species. Salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes) CSSC Medium to high marsh 6 to 8 ft above sea level with abundant driftwood and common pickleweed. Absent. Salt marsh habitat is not present on or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent. 171 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 35 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) CSSC Woodlands and scrub habitats throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains and portions of the South Bay. Present. This species is known to occur in the study area, with high densities of nests occurring in certain regions along the proposed trail alignment. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) CSSC Roosts in caves and mine tunnels, and occasionally in deep crevices in trees such as redwoods or in abandoned buildings, in a variety of habitats. Absent as Breeder. Suitably large cavities to support roosting are not present in the study area. However, the species may be present as an occasional migrant or forager. The closest known location to the study area is from Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve, approximately 3.5 mi north of study area (CNDDB 2019). Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) CSSC Forages over many habitats; roosts in caves, rock outcrops, buildings, and hollow trees. May be Present. Small to medium-sized cavities in trees within and adjacent to the study area provide moderately suitable roosting habitat. Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) CSSC Roosts in foliage in forest or woodlands, especially in or near riparian habitat. Absent as Breeder. May occur in low numbers as a migrant and winter resident, but does not breed in the project vicinity. May roost in foliage in trees in the study area, primarily in riparian areas. American badger (Taxidea taxus) CSSC Burrows in grasslands and occasionally in infrequently disked agricultural areas. Absent. No suitable habitat is present in the study area, and badgers are not known to occur in the region due to the lack of extensive grasslands and agricultural areas with friable soils, which are needed for digging burrows. Determined to be absent. California Fully Protected Species Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) FP Breeds on cliffs or in large trees (rarely on electrical towers), forages in open areas. Absent. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat is present in the study area. Determined to be absent. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) SE, SP Occurs mainly along seacoasts, rivers, and lakes; nests in tall trees or in cliffs, occasionally on electrical towers. Feeds mostly on fish. Absent. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat is present in the study area. Determined to be absent. 172 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 36 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) SP Nests in trees and forages in extensive grasslands or marshes. Absent. Open habitats in the study area are too restricted and too isolated from vast expanses of open habitat elsewhere to support this species (even for foraging by migrants). Determined to be absent. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CODE DESIGNATIONS FE = Federally listed Endangered FT = Federally listed Threatened SE = State listed Endangered ST = State listed Threatened SC = State Candidate for listing CSSC = California Species of Special Concern SP = State Fully Protected Species 173 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 37 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Impacts on CDFW sensitive natural communities, vegetation alliances/associations, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Appendix G of the California Code of Regulations). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats are also protected under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or the USFWS. Sensitive Natural Communities. A query of sensitive habitats in Rarefind (CNDDB 2019) identified nine sensitive habitats as occurring within the nine USGS quadrangles containing or surrounding the study area : maritime coast range ponderosa pine forest (G1/S1.1), Monterey pine forest (G1/S1.1), north central coas t California roach/stickleback/steelhead stream (unranked), north central coast drainage Sacramento sucker/roach river (unranked), north central coast short-run coho stream (unranked), north central coast steelhead/sculpin stream (unranked), northern coastal salt marsh (G3/S3/2), northern interior cypress forest (G2/S2/2), and northern maritime chaparral (G1/S1.2). There were no ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) or Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) trees observed during the site visit, therefore both maritime coast range ponderosa pine forest and Monterey pine forest are absent from the study area. The study area does not occur along the coast, but rather on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Therefore, all four types of sensitive rivers and streams described above are considered absent from the study area, as they are restricted to the western slope in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Northern coastal salt marsh is characterized by Holland (1986) as occurring along sheltered inland margins of bays, often co- dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), California cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), and sometimes saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). None of these species and no salt marsh habitats were observed in the study area. No cypress (Hesperocyparis sp.) trees were observed during the site visit, therefore northern interior cypress forest is absent from the study area. Northern maritime chaparral is described by Holland (1986) as occurring “within the zone of coastal fog influence… near the coast.” Additionally, this chaparral type is dominated by ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.) and manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.). The study area is on the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and is not subject to consistent fog influence, and the northern coastal scrub (disturbed) does not support the required shrub species assemblages. Therefore, northern maritime chaparral is absent from the study area. Sensitive Vegetation Alliances. Nearly the entire study area, except the maintained transmission corridor, can best be described as California bay forest (Umbellularia californica association). As the alliance level, this habitat would likely be described as Umbellularia California – Pseudotsuga menziesii alliance due to the consistent occurrence of Douglas fir within the canopy. CDFW does not currently recognize this alliance and as such, it has not been ranked for rarity (CDFW 2019). However, the California bay forest association and alliance is ranked as G4/S3 by CDFW. This means there are greater than 100 viable occurrences worldwide and/or more than 12,950 hectares, and there are 21–100 viable occurrences statewide and/or more than 2,590–12,950 hectares. Thus any undescribed association under this alliance would be considered sensitive by CDFW. Therefore, all mixed evergreen forest and mixed riparian forest would qualify as a sensitive vegetation alliance (CDFW 2019). 174 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 38 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Sensitive Habitats (Waters of the U.S./State). The four streams which cross the study area (shown in Figure 3) would all likely be considered waters of the U.S./state. Any impacts on verified waters of the U.S./state within the study area would require a Section 404 permit from the USACE and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco RWQCB. Riparian. The riparian banks and the habitat they support would be considered jurisdictional by the CDFW and the RWQCB. Riparian habitat occurs along each of the four streams in the study area, and is shown on Figure 3 as the mixed riparian forest habitat type. Any impacts to this habitat would require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waste Discharge Requirement from RWQCB and a LSAA agreement from CDFW. 175 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 39 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Section 6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The State CEQA Guidelines provide direction for evaluating the impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines a “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project's impacts on biological resources are deemed significant if the project would: A. “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” B. “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels” C. “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community” D. “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal” In addition to the Section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would: A. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” 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” C. “have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands” D. “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites” E. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” F. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan” 6.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, 176 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 40 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 6.1.1 Impacts on CRPR 1 or 2 Plants (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Four plant species, bent-flowered fiddleneck, Loma Prieta hoita, woodland woolythreads, and white-flowered rein orchid, categorized by the CNPS as CRPR 1 or 2 have the potential to occur within the study area. If present, project development may affect special-status plants due to disturbance of individuals within the populations and disturbance or destruction of suitable habitat. Direct impacts could include grading or filling areas supporting these species, trampling or crushing of plants, and soil compaction. Indirect impacts could include increased mobilization of dust onto plants, which can affect plant survival due to adverse effects on photosynthesis and respiration. Conservation of CRPR 1 and 2 species is important because their populations contribute to preserving the genetic resources for the species and ensuring persistence of rare species in the County and state. If these species are present and impacts occur to 10% or less of their population (by individuals or occupied area) within the study area, such a low level of impact would not be expected to cause the extirpation of the population, as long as the remaining plants were avoided and protected. However, due to the regional rarity of these species, impacts to more than 10% of a population could contribute to a reduction in these species’ range or genetic resources. Such an impact would be significant under CEQA (Criterion A) because extirpation of any population located within the study area could negatively impact the species’ genetic resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts on special-status plants to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 1. Pre-Activity Surveys for Special-Status Plants. Prior to initial ground disturbance and during the appropriate blooming period (i.e., bent-flowered fiddleneck, June – July; Loma Prieta hoita, June – July; woodland woolythreads, March – July; and white-flowered rein orchid, May - September), a focused survey for these four potentially occurring special-status plant species will be conducted within suitable habitat in the project footprint and a minimum 20-ft buffer around the project footprint. This buffer may be increased by the qualified plant ecologist depending on site-specific conditions and activities planned in the areas, but must be at least 20-ft wide. Situations for which a greater buffer may be required include proximity to proposed activities expected to generate large volumes of dust, such as grading; or potential for project activities to alter hydrology supporting the habitat for the species in question. Surveys are to be conducted in a year with near-average or above-average precipitation. The purpose of the survey will be to assess the presence or absence of the potentially occurring species. If none of the target species are found in the impact area or the identified buffer, then no further mitigation will be warranted. If bent-flowered fiddleneck, Loma Prieta hoita, woodland woolythreads, or white-flowered rein orchid individuals are found in the survey area, then Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 will be implemented. Mitigation Measure 2. Avoidance Buffers. To the extent feasible, and in consultation with a qualified plant ecologist, the project proponent will design and construct the project to avoid completely impacts on 177 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 41 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 all populations of special-status plant species within the project site or within the identified buffer of the impact area. Avoided special-status plant populations will be protected by establishing and observing the identified buffer between plant populations and the impact area. All such populations located in the impact area or the identified buffer, and their associated designated avoidance areas, will be clearly depicted on any construction plans. In addition, prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation removal, the limits of the identified buffer around special-status plants to be avoided will be flagged or fenced. The flagging will be maintained intact and in good condition throughout project-related construction activities. If complete avoidance is not feasible and more than 10% of a population (by occupied area or individuals) would be impacted as determined by a qualified plant ecologist, Mitigation Measure 3 will be implemented. Mitigation Measure 3. Preserve Off-Site Populations of Special-Status Plant Species. If avoidance of CRPR 1 or 2 special-status plant species is not feasible and more than 10% of the population would be impacted, compensatory mitigation will be provided via the preservation, enhancement, and management of occupied habitat for the species. To compensate for impacts on CRPR 1 or 2 special-status plants, off- site habitat occupied by the affected species will be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (at least one plant preserved for each plant affected, and at least one occupied acre preserved for each occupied acre affected), for any impact over the 10% significance threshold. Areas proposed to be preserved as compensatory mitigation for special-status plant impacts must contain verified extant populations of the CRPR-ranked plants that would be impacted. Mitigation areas will be managed in perpetuity to encourage persistence and even expansion of the preserved target species. Mitigation lands cannot be located on land that is currently held publicly for resource protection unless substantial enhancement of habitat quality will be achieved by the mitigation activities. The mitigation habitat will be of equal or greater habitat quality compared to the impacted areas, as determined by a qualified plant ecologist, in terms of soil features, extent of disturbance, vegetation structure, and dominant species composition, and will contain or successfully re-establish at least as many individuals of the species as are impacted by project activities. The permanent protection and management of mitigation lands will be ensured through an appropriate mechanism, such as a conservation easement or fee title purchase. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) will be developed and implemented for the mitigation lands. That plan will include, at a minimum, the following information: a summary of habitat impacts and the proposed mitigation; a description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions; a description of measures to be undertaken to enhance (e.g., through focused management that may include removal of invasive species in adjacent suitable but currently unoccupied habitat) the mitigation site for the focal special-status species; 178 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 42 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 a description of measures to transplant individual plants or seeds from the impact area to the mitigation site, if appropriate (which will be determined by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist); proposed management activities to maintain high-quality habitat conditions for the focal species; a description of habitat and species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc. At a minimum, performance criteria will include demonstration that any plant population fluctuations over the monitoring period do not indicate a downward trajectory in terms of reduction in numbers and/or occupied area for the preserved mitigation population that can be attributed to management (i.e., that are not the result of local weather patterns, as determined by monitoring of a nearby reference population, or other factors unrelated to management); and contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria. The HMMP will be prepared by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist. Approval of the HMMP by the City will be required before the project impact occurs. 6.1.2 Impacts on CRPR 3 or 4 Plants (Less than Significant) Santa Clara red ribbons, categorized by the CNPS as CRPR 4 has the potential to occur within the study area (Section 5.1, Appendix B). If present, project development may affect this species due to disturbance of individuals within the population and disturbance or destruction of suitable habitat. Direct impacts could include grading or filling areas supporting this species, trampling or crushing of plants, and soil compaction. Indirect impacts could include increased mobilization of dust onto plants, which can affect their photosynthesis and respiration. Santa Clara red ribbons is designated as a CRPR 4.3 species, which is defined by CNPS as “plants of limited distribution - a watch list”. Additionally, the .3 designation indicates that this species is “not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)” (CNPS 2019). The study area occurs within the heart of the range for this species, and any populations occurring within the study area would not represent a range expansion for this species nor a population at the periphery of the species range. Further, the narrow and linear nature of the project make it unlikely that project activities would result in impacts on an entire population of Santa Clara red ribbons, unless that population is very small. Due to its regional distribution, a loss of a small population in this area would not rise to the standards of a significant impact under CEQA. Despite this, surveys for Santa Clara red ribbons would be conducted concurrently with surveys for the CRPR 1 and 2 species described above. If Santa Clara red ribbons occurs within the project alignment, the trail would be rerouted if feasible to avoid impacts to the population. The feasibility of trail rerouting would be determined 179 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 43 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 by the project team. This is not considered a mitigation measure because any impacts to this species would be considered less than significant under CEQA Criterion A, and surveys and potential avoidance is being conducted voluntarily by the City. 6.1.3 Impacts on the California Red-legged Frog (Less than Significant with Mitigation) There are three records of the California red-legged frog (federally listed as threatened and a California species of special concern) within 3 mi of the study area, including one record from Saratoga Creek, at a location approximately 0.3 mi of the study area (CNDDB 2019). While no high-quality breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog is present in the study area, this species may use streams and associated riparian corridors in the study area as foraging and/or dispersal habitat. Project activities would not result in the loss of breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog. However, suitable foraging and dispersal habitat would be disturbed. This impact would be temporary, occurring only during trail construction and maintenance activities. In addition, if individuals are present during construction activities, grading, excavation, and ground disturbance associated with construction of the trail, retaining walls, and bridge abutments, could result in injury or mortality of individuals, a significant impact (Significance Criterion A) due to the species regional rarity. Seasonal movements may be temporarily affected during construction activities because of disturbance, and substrate vibrations may cause individuals to move out of refugia, exposing them to a greater risk of predation or desiccation. In addition, petrochemicals, hydraulic fluids, and solvents that are spilled or leaked from construction vehicles or equipment may kill individuals. Further, increases in human concentration and activity in the vicinity of suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left at the work site and that would prey opportunistically on individuals of this species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4–6, as well as Mitigation Measure 11, BMPs for Work within Sensitive Habitats, as described under Impact 6.2.2 below, would reduce project impacts on the California red-legged frog to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4. Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Before any construction activities begin, the City will hire a qualified biologist who will conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include descriptions of all special-status species potentially occurring on the project site and their habitats, the importance of these species, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve them as they relate to the proposed project, and the boundaries within which project activities may be accomplished. Mitigation Measure 5. Avoidance. Because dusk and dawn are often the times when the red-legged frog is most actively moving and foraging, to the maximum extent practicable, earthmoving and other project activities will cease no less than 30 minutes before sunset and will not begin again prior to 30 minutes after sunrise. Further, to the extent practicable, ground-disturbing activities will be avoided from October through April because that is when red-legged frogs are most likely to be moving through upland areas. When ground-disturbing activities must take place between November 1 and March 31, the following measures will be implemented. 180 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 44 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Mitigation Measure 6. Pre-activity Survey. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for the California red-legged frog prior to initial ground disturbing activities within 100 ft of any stream crossing and will remain on-site to monitor during all initial ground-disturbing activities within this area. If a California red-legged frog is encountered in the work area, all activities with the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual will be immediately halted and will not resume until the individual leaves the project site of its own accord. 6.1.4 Impacts on the Santa Cruz Black Salamander and California Giant Salamander, (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The Santa Cruz black salamander and California giant salamander (both California species of special concern) are typically found in moist forests and riparian zones in or near streams or seeps. The mixed riparian forest in the study area provides suitable breeding and foraging habitat for these species. The Santa Cruz black salamander is mostly terrestrial and lays eggs in cavities below ground. California giant salamanders are both terrestrial and aquatic with breeding and larval development occurring in clear, cold rivers, creeks, and ponds. Because project impacts on these species would be similar, they are assessed together. The project would not result in the loss of any aquatic breeding habitat for the California giant salamander. Construction activities, particularly tree removal, would result in the permanent loss of a small amount of riparian habitat (i.e., potential breeding habitat for the Santa Cruz black salamander). However, because of the relatively small amount of riparian habitat that would be affected relative to the extent of suitable riparian habitat in the region, impacts on breeding habitat for the Santa Cruz black salamander would be considered less than significant. If Santa Cruz black salamanders or California giant salamanders are present during project activities, individuals would be at risk for injury or mortality due to equipment, vehicle traffic, and foot traffic, a potentially significant impact (Significance Criterion A) due to the species regional rarity. In addition, substrate vibrations may cause individuals to move out of refugia, exposing them to a greater risk of predation or desiccation; may interfere with predator detection; and may result in a decrease in time spent foraging. Such impacts would be temporary in nature, occurring only during construction or maintenance activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4, as described above for the California red-legged frog; Mitigation Measure 11, as described under Impact 6.2.2 below; and Mitigation Measure 7 would reduce project impacts on these species to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7. Pre-activity Survey. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for special-status amphibians and reptiles prior to initial ground disturbing activities within 100 ft of any stream crossing and will remain on-site to monitor during all initial ground-disturbing activities within this area. If a species of special concern is encountered in the work area, all activities with the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual will be immediately halted and the following measures implemented: 181 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 45 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 If eggs or larvae are found, the qualified biologist will establish a buffer around the location of the eggs/larvae and work may proceed outside of the buffer zone. No work will occur within the buffer zone. Work within the buffer zone will be rescheduled until the time that eggs have hatched and/or larvae have metamorphosed. If an adult is found, the individual will be captured and relocated to a safe location outside of the work area by a qualified biologist, after which work may proceed. 6.1.5 Impacts on the Western Pond Turtle (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Suitable habitat for the western pond turtle, a California species of special concern, consists of ponds or instream pools (i.e., slack water environments) with available basking sites, nearby upland areas with clay or silty soils for nesting, and shallow aquatic habitat with emergent vegetation and invertebrate prey for juveniles (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The study area provides marginal quality basking habitat for western pond turtles due to the paucity of open water and basking sites. Therefore, there is a low probability of this species using the study area for nesting. However, pond turtles may use the study area, especially the riparian corridors, for dispersal. The project would not result in the loss of any aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle or in a substantial loss of upland dispersal habitat. However, individuals are present during project activities, they would be at risk for injury or mortality due to equipment, vehicle traffic, and foot traffic, a potentially significant impact (Significance Criterion A) due to the species regional rarity. Such impacts would be temporary in nature, occurring only during construction or maintenance activities. Including the western pond turtle when implementing Mitigation Measure 4, as described above for the California red-legged frog, and Mitigation Measure 7, as described for the California giant salamander and Santa Cruz black salamander, would reduce project impacts on the western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level. 6.1.6 Impacts on the Olive-sided Flycatcher (Less than Significant) The olive-sided flycatcher (a California species of special concern when nesting) is associated with coniferous forest habitat and breeds in mature forests with open canopies, along forest edges in more densely vegetated areas, in recently burned forest habitats, and in selectively harvested landscapes (Altman and Sallabanks 2000; Robertson and Hutto 2007). The mixed evergreen forest and mixed riparian forest in the study area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species. Project construction activities may affect olive-sided flycatcher nesting and foraging habitat and could possibly impact active nests, including eggs or nestlings. Construction activities, particularly tree removal, could result in the permanent loss of nesting habitat. However, because of the relatively small amount of forest habitat that would be affected relative to the extent of suitable habitat in the region, impacts on habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect. 182 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 46 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Adult olive-sided flycatchers are not expected to be killed or injured due to project activities because they could easily fly from the work site prior to such effects occurring. However, eggs or young in nests may be killed or injured as a result of destruction by construction personnel or equipment, or removal of vegetation containing nests. Further, nesting may be disrupted to the extent that nests would fail because of disturbance that was too frequent or too severe. In addition, project activities causing a substantial increase in noise, movement of equipment, or human presence may have a direct effect on the behavior of individuals causing them to avoid work sites and possibly exposing them to increased competition with other birds in the areas to which they disperse and increased levels of predation caused by unfamiliarity with the new area. These types of impacts are expected to occur primarily while construction or maintenance activities are ongoing. Increases in human concentration, including ongoing trail use, and activity associated with maintenance activities near suitable habitat also may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that would be attracted to trash left in the work site. However, based on our site observations, the areal extent of the study area, and known breeding densities of this species, no more than two pairs of olive-sided flycatchers are expected to nest on or adjacent to the study area, if it is present at all. Therefore, the loss of individuals potentially resulting from project development would represent a very small fraction of the regional population of this species and would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect. Nevertheless, all native bird species, including the olive-sided flycatcher are protected from direct take by federal and state statutes (see Impact 6.4 below). 6.1.7 Impacts on the San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (a California species of special concern) is known to occur throughout the study area, and numerous nests were documented along portions of the alignment during the reconnaissance survey. Project activities may result in the injury or mortality of dusky-footed woodrats because of equipment use and worker foot traffic, particularly when woodrats are taking refuge in their stick nests. Suitable habitat and nests may be directly lost as a result of clearing and grading for the proposed trail, retaining walls, and bridge abutments. Project construction could potentially result in the loss of tens of nests due to the species’ abundance along the proposed trail’s alignment. Indirect impacts also could occur as a result of over-crowding (as individuals lost habitat and moved to areas that were already occupied) and increased risk of predation. As a result of the species’ regional abundance and high reproductive capabilities, project impacts on dusky-footed woodrats would not have a substantial effect on regional populations. However, woodrats are very important ecologically in that they provide an important prey source for raptors (particularly owls) and for predatory mammals, and their nests also provide habitat for a wide variety of small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. As a result, the loss of large numbers of woodrats and their nests would be a significant impact (Significance Criterion A). Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4, as described above, as well as Mitigation Measures 8 would reduce project impacts on the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and its habitat to a less-than-significant level. 183 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 47 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Mitigation Measure 8. Preconstruction Surveys and Avoidance or Nest Relocation. Prior to any clearing of, or work within, woodland, riparian, and scrub habitats, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests. If active nests are determined to be present within or very close to the impact areas, the following measures will be implemented. Dusky-footed woodrats are year-round residents. Therefore, avoidance measures are limited to restricting project activities to avoid direct impacts on woodrats and their active nests to the extent feasible. Ideally, a minimum 5-ft buffer will be maintained between project activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, removing the nest would be a greater impact than that anticipated as a result of project activities. If avoidance of active nests is not feasible, then the woodrats will be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests and onset of any clearing or ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the woodrats. The nests will be dismantled and the nesting material moved to a new location outside the project’s impact areas so that it can be used by woodrats to construct new nests. Prior to nest deconstruction, each active nest will be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge out of the impact area. Whether the nest is on the ground or in a tree, the nest will be nudged to cause the woodrats to flee. The nest will then be dismantled and the nest material piled at the base of a nearby hardwood tree or shrub (preferably with refuge sites among the tree roots or with dense vegetation or other refugia nearby) outside of the impact area. The spacing between relocated nests will not be less than 100 ft, unless a qualified biologist has determined that the habitat can support higher densities of nests. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8 would be adequate to assure that impacts on dusky-footed woodrats and their habitat would be less than significant. Because the species’ habitats are relatively widespread, impacts on its habitat would not require additional species-specific mitigation. 6.1.8 Impacts on Pallid Bats (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The pallid bat, a California species of special concern, may forage throughout the study area. In addition, several larger trees with small to moderate-sized cavities were observed along the project alignment during the reconnaissance survey. These trees provide suitable roosting and breeding habitat for the pallid bat and removal of such trees could result in the loss of pallid bat roost sites. When trees containing roosting colonies or individual pallid bats are removed or modified, individual bats could be physically injured or killed; could be subjected to physiological stress from being disturbed during torpor; or could face increased predation because of exposure during daylight. In addition, nursing young may be subjected to disturbance-related abandonment by their mothers. Proposed project-related disturbance near a maternity roost of pallid bats, could cause females to abandon their young. Such impacts could be significant (Significance Criterion A) because the species’ population and available roosting habitat are limited locally and regionally and because loss of habitat or 184 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 48 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 individuals may have a substantial adverse effect on local and regional populations of the species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 9 and 10 would reduce project impacts on the pallid bat to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 9. Protect Bat Colonies. To minimize impacts on pallid bats the following measures will be implemented: A pre-activity survey for roosting pallid bats will be conducted prior to the onset of ground- disturbing activities. A qualified bat biologist will conduct a survey to look for evidence of bat use within suitable habitat. If evidence of use is observed, or if high-quality roost sites are present in areas where evidence of bat use might not be detectable (such as a tree cavity), an evening survey and/or a nocturnal acoustic survey may be necessary to determine if a bat colony is present and to identify the specific location of the bat colony. If no active maternity colony or non-breeding bat roost is located, project work can continue as planned. If an active pallid bat maternity colony or non-breeding roost is located, the project work will be redesigned to avoid disturbance of the roosts, if feasible. If an active maternity colony is located and project work cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied tree, disturbance will be scheduled to take place outside the maternity roost season (March 15–July 31), and a disturbance-free buffer zone (determined by a qualified bat biologist) will be implemented during the maternity roost season. If an active non-breeding bat roost is located and project work cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied tree, the individuals will be safely evicted between August 1 and October 15 or between February 15 and March 15 (as determined by a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW). Bats may be evicted through exclusion after notifying CDFW. Trees with roosts that must be removed will first be disturbed at dusk, just before removal that same evening, to allow bats to escape during the darker hours. Mitigation Measure 10 (Provide Alternative Bat Roost Habitat) may need to be implemented subsequently. Mitigation Measure 10. Provide Alternative Bat Roost Habitat. If, after implementation of Mitigation Measure 9, a qualified bat biologist identifies a tree containing a pallid bat maternity roost that is to be removed by project activities, a qualified bat biologist will design and determine an appropriate location for an alternative roost structure. If a tree containing a pallid bat maternity roost is not removed, but project-related disturbance causes the abandonment of the roost site (even during the non-breeding season), then the City will either monitor the roost site to determine whether the affected species returns to the roost, or construct an alternative roost. If the City elects to monitor the roost and bats do not return within one year, then an alternative roost will be constructed. 185 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 49 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 A qualified bat biologist will determine the appropriate location for the alternative roost structure, based on the location of the original roost and habitat conditions in the vicinity, and oversee installation of a new roost structure. The roost structure either will be built to specifications determined by a qualified bat biologist, or will be purchased from an appropriate vendor. The structure will be placed as close to the affected roost site as feasible. The City will monitor the roost for up to three years (or until occupancy is determined, whichever occurs first) to determine use by bats. If, by Year 3, pallid bats are not using the structure, a qualified bat biologist, in consultation with CDFW, will identify alternative roost designs or locations for placement of the roost, place the new roost at the agreed- upon location, and monitor the new roost for an additional three years (or until occupancy has been verified). 6.2 Impacts on Sensitive Communities: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6.2.1 Impacts on Mixed Evergreen Forest (Less than Significant) As discussed above in section 5.3, the mixed evergreen forest within the study area falls within the Umbellularia californica forest alliance and is considered a sensitive habitat by CDFW. This alliance is ranked as G4/S3 by CDFW. This means there are greater than 100 viable occurrences worldwide and/or more than 12,950 hectares, and there are 21–100 viable occurrences statewide and/or more than 2,590–12,950 hectares. Therefore, impacts on this alliance type would be potentially significant under CEQA (Significance Criterion B). The project would impact up to 6.18 ac of mixed evergreen forest. However, the vast majority of the study area and adjacent habitat is composed of this alliance type. Additionally, this alliance is common on a regional level, and is known to occur extensively in the Santa Cruz Mountains (Sawyer et al 2009). Furthermore, impacts from trail construction would be minor within this alliance type. Understory vegetation is sparse and undeveloped, and most trail construction would only result in soil disturbance and would not impact a substantial amount of vegetation. Overstory vegetation would be left mostly intact, with four California bay trees currently slated for removal. Additional California bay trees may be removed during the course of project implementation, however, the number of trees would be minimal, and would be insignificant considering the prevalence of California bay within the study area specifically and in the region generally. California bay is a particularly robust species, and any removed trees would likely regenerate naturally from stump or root stock. Based upon this alliance’s local and regional abundance and the minor nature of impacts project implementation would cause, impacts on mixed evergreen forest are considered less than significant. 6.2.2 Impacts on Mixed Riparian Forest (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Riparian habitats are unique areas that surround river and stream banks and contribute disproportionately high habitat values and functions for their limited surface area. Specially-adapted plants that may tolerate repeated 186 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 50 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 flooding or that rely on a high water table often occur in these areas, but even when it supports primarily upland species, this vegetation is important for stabilizing the banks, reducing soil erosion, and maintaining water quality within the stream channel, and the amount and type of vegetation present can have effects on water temperature and therefore aquatic habitat within the stream. Riparian corridor vegetation also provides specialized habitat for wildlife, including shade, breeding areas, and food sources. Riparian habitats are uncommon within the larger landscape. Riparian areas are considered sensitive habitats by the CDFW and are regulated as such under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Construction of the trail and associated bridges would result in minor impacts (0.03 ac) on mixed riparian forest within the study area. The project has avoided and minimized riparian impacts by designing clear span bridges for the four trail crossings that will introduce only minor abutment-related impacts on the riparian banks. However, riparian vegetation removal would occur, and would include the removal of at least one 18-inch diameter California bay tree. Vegetation recovery would be limited underneath the bridge crossings due to bridge shading. In addition, indirect impacts could occur in the form of equipment spills and bank destabilization, if not avoided. Loss of riparian vegetation would constitute a significant impact under CEQA (Significance Criterion B) owing to the importance of this habitat type to regional biodiversity. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce impacts on riparian habitat to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 11. BMPs for Work within Sensitive Habitats. The following measures will be implemented to reduce impacts on mixed riparian forest and the associated streams. Additionally, the project will acquire permits from CDFW and RWQCB and follow all requirements and avoidance and minimization measures listed therein. Personnel will prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water into channels. Spill prevention kits will always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials. No equipment servicing will be done in the stream channel or immediate flood plain, unless equipment stationed in these locations cannot be readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators). Personnel will use the appropriate equipment for the job that minimizes disturbance to the stream bottom. Appropriately-tired vehicles, either tracked or wheeled, will be used depending on the situation Temporary fills, such as for access ramps or scaffolding, will be completely removed upon finishing the work. Existing native vegetation will be retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width. If riparian vegetation is to be removed with chainsaws, consider using saws currently available that operate with vegetable-based bar oil Control exposed soil by stabilizing slopes (e.g., with erosion control blankets) and protecting channels (e.g., using silt fences or straw wattles). 187 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 51 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Control sediment runoff using sandbag barriers or straw wattles. Stabilize site ingress/egress locations. Temporary disturbance or removal of aquatic and riparian vegetation will not exceed the minimum necessary to complete the work. Vehicles operated within and adjacent to streams will be checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of materials that, if introduced to the water, could be deleterious to aquatic life. Potential contaminating materials must be stored in covered storage areas or secondary containment that is impervious to leaks and spills All disturbed soils will be revegetated with native plants suitable for the altered soil conditions upon completion of construction. Local watershed native plants will be used if available. All disturbed areas that have been compacted shall be de-compacted prior to planting or seeding. Cut-and-fill slopes will be planted with local native or non-invasive plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. Mitigation Measure 12. Mitigation Plantings for Permanent Loss of Riparian Trees. All trees removed within mixed riparian forest habitat will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 (mitigation stems: impacted stems). Trees to be removed likely consist of only California bay, a tree which is very abundant within riparian areas in the study area and the vicinity. Replaced trees will preferably consist of the same species which was removed during project implementation, and be planted within the same reach where impacts occur. Irrigation will not be installed, so the replacement trees must be planted low enough on the riparian banks to anticipate intercepting seasonal groundwater. Replacement trees will be monitored annually for three years and replaced to 100% survivorship through Year 3. 6.3 Impacts on Wetlands: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Wetlands and other waters provide substantial habitat value for wildlife, providing foraging and dispersal opportunities for aquatic-dependent species. Additionally, these habitats are considered sensitive by regulatory agencies. Wetlands do not occur within the study area, however, the proposed project could impact sensitive stream habitats on the project site that fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Development of areas near creeks can negatively impact water quality. In order to eliminate direct impacts on sensitive creek habitat, the project has been designed to utilize clear span bridges at all four stream crossings, with any required footings located above the ordinary high water mark. Therefore, no direct impacts would occur within jurisdictional other waters habitat. Nevertheless, indirect impacts could still occur due to equipment spills and bank destabilization, which could adversely affect water quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 11, discussed above, would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. 6.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with 188 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 52 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Less than Significant) For many species, the landscape is a mosaic of suitable and unsuitable habitat types. Environmental corridors are segments of land that provide a link between these different habitats while also providing cover. Development that fragments natural habitats (i.e., breaks them into smaller, disjunct pieces) can have a twofold impact on wildlife: first, as habitat patches become smaller they are unable to support as many individuals (patch size); and second, the area between habitat patches may be unsuitable for wildlife species to traverse (connectivity). The study area is located in mixed evergreen forest, riparian woodland, and an existing approximately 100-ft wide powerline right-of-way. Although construction of the trail would create a narrow corridor (a 5-ft wide trail) through existing natural communities, it would result in negligible loss of habitat and animals would continue to be able to move across the trail after it is completed. Moreover, because construction of the trail is expected to require removal of only a handful of trees, no substantial changes in canopy cover or forest composition would result from project implementation. The vegetation communities along streams and rivers often function as wildlife movement corridors, and in the study area Congress Springs Creek and other tributaries to Saratoga Creek are expected to function as such. Although the proposed trail alignment crosses streams at four locations, all four crossings would be composed of clear span bridges. Therefore, following completion of construction, the project would not impede the movement of species moving along the riparian corridors. Noise and disturbance associated with trail construction, ongoing trail maintenance activities, and trail use by humans could cause species that commonly use habitats within the study area for dispersal to temporarily avoid moving through the site. The loudest noise would be associated with construction (including helicopter delivery of bridges) and temporary maintenance activities, and once such activities are complete, wildlife use of the surrounding areas would be similar to existing conditions. It is likely that trail use by humans will inhibit movement of some more sensitive wildlife species, such as mountain lions (Puma concolor), through the site, as this species is particularly sensitive to human activity. However, ample opportunity exists for movement by this species in the vicinity of the project site (either in other locations or when humans are not actively using the trail), and while dispersal or habitat use by this species may be limited by the introduction of human activity to this trail site, impacts on regional mountain lion populations or movements are not expected to be substantial. Thus, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors and this impact would be less than significant. Disturbance related to construction activities, maintenance, and post-construction trail use during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests located near the trail. In particular, delivery of bridges via helicopter would introduce 189 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 53 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 substantial noise, and rotor wash could physically impact nests by knocking nests, eggs, or young out of trees. However, the habitats in the study area represent a very small proportion of the habitats that support these species regionally. In addition, all species of birds currently using the study area are expected to continue to nest and forage on the site after project construction is completed because no substantial loss of habitat would occur and use of the trail following its completion would be limited to low impact activities such as hiking/jogging and horseback riding. Therefore, project impacts on common nesting and foraging birds due to disturbance would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and these impacts would not constitute a significant impact on these species or their habitats under CEQA. However, all native bird species are protected from direct take by federal and state statutes (see Sections 3.1.5 and 3.2.4). Therefore, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to ensure that project activities comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code: Measure A. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in the project region extends from February 1 through August 31. Measure B. Preconstruction Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31 then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project construction. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist should inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. Measure C. Buffers. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by project activities, the ornithologist should determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 ft for raptors and 100 ft for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be disturbed during project implementation. 6.5 Impacts due to Conflicts with Local Policies: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (No Impact) 6.5.1 Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (No Impact) Per the County of Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, §C16.1 to §C16.17), permits from the County are required for removal of any tree which meets the definition of protected tree, as defined in Section 3.3.1 above. No trees within the portion of the study area in unincorporated Santa Clara County meet the definition of protected trees, due to the parcels being located within the “Hillside” zoning 190 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 54 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 district and being greater than 3 ac in size. Therefore, there would be no impact regarding conflicts with the County of Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. 6.5.2 City of Saratoga Tree Ordinance (No Impact) Per City of Saratoga Municipal Code Chapter 15, permission to remove protected trees may be granted as part of approval of other development permits. However, the Tree Ordinance only applies to private development projects, and not to projects implemented by the City itself. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure 12 would replace all trees lost at a ratio of 1:1. Therefore, there would be no impact regarding conflicts with the City of Saratoga Tree Ordinance. 6.6 Impact due to Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (No Impact) The study area is not located within an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any such plans. 6.7 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region. In Saratoga where the project is located, such projects include the Mountain Winery Annexation, John Henry House Relocation, and a mixed use project at 3rd Street and Big Basin Way. The 3rd Street project site is located on a previously modified, predominantly paved parcel in downtown Saratoga. Thus, this project is not expected to impact any of the special-status species potentially affected by the proposed Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project or to result in any direct impacts on wetlands or other sensitive habitats. Similarly, the proposed relocation of the John Henry House and construction of a mixed-use commercial/office building would occur at an already developed, urban location and is not expected to impact special-status species or sensitive habitats. Thus, the cumulative impact on biological resources resulting from the proposed project in combination with these two projects is not expected to be significant. The Mountain Winery Annexation project has the potential to impact natural habitat similar to those on the proposed project site. Thus, this project, as well as any development that occurs in the future in similar habitats in this region, would result in potential impacts on many of the same types of biological resources that would be impacted by construction activities for the proposed project. The cumulative impact on biological resources resulting from the proposed project in combination with other projects in the project area and larger region would be dependent on the relative magnitude of adverse effects of these projects on biological resources compared to the relative benefit of impact avoidance and minimization efforts prescribed by planning documents, CEQA mitigation measures, and permit requirements for each project; compensatory mitigation 191 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 55 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 and proactive conservation measures associated with each project. In the absence of such avoidance, minimization, compensatory mitigation, and conservation measures, cumulatively significant impacts on biological resources would occur. However, the City of Saratoga General Plan contains conservation measures that would benefit biological resources, as well as measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on these resources. Further, it is expected that most current and future projects in the region, including the projects listed above, will have to mitigate project impacts through the CEQA, Fish and Game Code 1602, or Clean Water Act Section 404/401 permitting process, and possibly FESA and CESA consultation. As a result, these other projects are expected to implement mitigation for substantial impacts on biological resources as is being required of the proposed project. Thus, provided that this project successfully incorporates the mitigation measures described in this biological resources report, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to substantial cumulative impacts on biological resources. 192 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 56 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Section 7. References Altman, B., and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia. Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky. Bousman, W.G. 2007. Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi. Pages 272-273 in W.G. Bousman, editor. Breeding bird atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California. Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott, Jr., and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110: 85- 95. Bury, R.B., and D.J. Germano. 2008. Actinemys marmorata (Baird and Girard 1852) - western pond turtle, Pacific pond turtle in G.J. Rhodin, C.H. Pritchard, P.P. van Dijk, R.A. Saumure, K.A. Buhlmann, and J.B. Iverson, editors. Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: A compilation project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs. Carraway L.N., and B.J. Verts. 1991. Neotoma fuscipes. Mammalian Species No. 386, The American Society of Mammalogists. 10 pp. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. VegCAMP Natural Communities Lists. <https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/natural-communities>. Accessed March 2019. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2019. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Accessed through April 2019) from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (9.0 online edition). Accessed March 2019 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory. City of Saratoga. 2007. Open Space and Conservation Element 2007. City of Saratoga, California. Background Report and Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures. June 6, 2007. City of Saratoga. 2014. Saratoga Quarry Park Master Plan Initial Study. 193 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 57 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed through April 2019). Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Nichols, L. Master, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, A. Teucher, and B. Young. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Methodology for Assigning Ranks. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Fellers, G.M. 2005. Rana draytonii California red-legged frog. In M. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press. CA: Berkeley. Pp 552- 554. Fellers, G.M., and P.M. Kleeman. 2007. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) movement and habitat use: implications for conservation. Journal of Herpetology 41(2): 276-286. Ferguson, H., and J. M. Azerrad. 2004. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus. In Management recommendations for Washington's priority species - Volume V: Mammals: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Google Inc. 2019. Google Earth (Version 7.3.0.3832) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. Red-legged frog distribution and status - 1997. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999. Santa Clara Valley Water District western pond turtle distribution and status - 1999. Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd edition. Volume II. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Haynie, M.L., C.F. Fulhorst, M. Rood, S.G. Bennett, B.D. Hess, and R.D. Bradley. 2007. Genetic variation in multilocus microsatellite genotypes in two species of woodrats (Neotoma macrotis and N. fuscipes). California Journal of Mammalogy 88:745-758. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Johnston, D.S., B. Hepburn, J. Krauel, T. Stewart, and D. Rambaldini. 2006. Winter roosting and foraging ecology of pallid bats in Central Coastal California. Bat Research News 47:115. 194 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 58 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Kucera, T. 1997. California Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus). California Department of Fish and Game. http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=1510. Accessed April 2019. Kunz, T.H., and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mammalian Species 175:1-6. Lee, D.E., and W.D. Tietje. 2005. Dusky-footed woodrat demography and prescribed fire in a California oak woodland. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):1211-1220. Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rai nbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2019. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. [https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/essential-fish-habitat-mapper] [Accessed April 17, 2019]. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed April 2019. PISCES. 2019. California Fish Website. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/PISCES_Distribution_Maps/ [Accessed April 2019]. Robertson, B.A., and R.L. Hutto. 2007. Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for olive-sided flycatchers? Condor 109:109-121. Rottenborn, S. 2007. Vaux’s swift. pp. 244–245 in Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California. 547 p. Safford, H.D., J.H. Viers, and S.P. Harrison. 2005. Serpentine Endemism in the California Flora: A Database of Serpentine Affinity. Madrono 52(4):222-257. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation [online]. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society. [SAS] Sequoia Audubon Society. 2001. San Mateo County Breeding Bird Atlas. 224 p. Sherwin, R., and A. Piaggio. 2005. Corynorhinus townsendii. Western Bat Working Group. Available from http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/coto.pdf (accessed May 2011). Stebbins, R.C., and S.M. McGinnis. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of Califo rnia. Revised Edition. University of California Press. 537 p. 195 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report 59 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Thomson, R.C., A.N. Wright, and H.B. Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. University of California Press. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the California Red-legged Frog. Federal Register 61:25813-26833. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register 75:12815- 12959. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Environmental Conservation Online System [Accessed through April 2019; https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/]. Widdowson, W.P. 2008. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). in W.D. Shuford, and T. Gardali, editors. California bird species of special concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game, Camarillo, California. Wilson, D.E. and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volume II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1990. California's wildlife. Volume III: Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 196 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report A-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Appendix A. Plants Observed Family Scientific Name Common Name Agavaceae Chlorogalum pomeridianum soap plant Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Apaiceae Sanicula crassicaulis gamble weed Apiaceae Torilis arvensis field hedge parsley Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Betulaceae Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut Boraginaceae Cynoglossum grande western houndstongue Boraginaceae Eriodictyon californica yerba santa Brassicaceae Cardamine californica milk maids Caprifoliaceae Lonicera sp. honeysuckle Caryophyllaceae Stellaria media chickweed Cucurbitaceae Marah fabacea California man-root Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens western bracken fern Ericaceae Arbutus menziesii pacific madrone Ericaceae Arctostaphylos glauca big bierry manzanita Fabaceae Acmispon glaber deerweed Fabaceae Cytisus scoparius scotch broom Fagaceae Notholithocapus densiflorus tanoak Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Fagaceae Quercus parvula var. shrevei Shreve's oak Grossularuaceae Ribes sp. gooseberry Lamiaceae Clinopodium douglasii yerba buena Lamiaceae Clinopodium douglasii yerba buena Lamiaceae Salvia mellifera black sage Lauraceae Umbelluluaria californica bay laurel Melanthiaceae Trillium ovatum pacific trillium Montiaceae Claytonia parviflora narrow leaved miner's lettuce Montiaceae Claytonia perfoliata Miner's lettuce Oxalidaceae Oxalis pes-capre bermuda buttercup Phrymaceae Diplacus aurantiacus sticky monkeyflower Pinaceae Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir Poaceae Elymus glaucus blue wildrye 197 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report B-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Appendix B. Special-Status Plants Considered for Potential Occurrence Common Name Scientific Name Suitable Habitat Absent Edaphic Conditions Absent Outside Elevation Range Extirpated from Project Vicinity Blasdale's bent grass Agrostis blasdalei x bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris Anderson's manzanita Arctostaphylos andersonii x Schreiber's manzanita Arctostaphylos glutinosa x x Ohlone manzanita Arctostaphylos ohloneana x Kings Mountain manzanita Arctostaphylos regismontana x Bonny Doon manzanita Arctostaphylos silvicola x x marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola x x Santa Cruz Mountains pussypaws Calyptridium parryi var. hesseae x x swamp harebell Campanula californica x bristly sedge Carex comosa x deceiving sedge Carex saliniformis x x Congdon's tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii x Ben Lomond spineflower Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana x x Monterey spineflower Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens x x Scotts Valley spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii x x robust spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta x x Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle Cirsium fontinale var. campylon x x Santa Clara red ribbons Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa San Francisco collinsia Collinsia multicolor x x tear drop moss Dacryophyllum falcifolium x x western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis Santa Clara Valley dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii x x Ben Lomond buckwheat Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens x x San Mateo woolly sunflower Eriophyllum latilobum x Santa Cruz wallflower Erysimum teretifolium x x fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea x x short-leaved evax Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia x x Santa Cruz cypress Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. abramsiana x 198 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report B-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Suitable Habitat Absent Edaphic Conditions Absent Outside Elevation Range Extirpated from Project Vicinity Butano Ridge cypress Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. butanoensis x x Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia x Kellogg's horkelia Horkelia cuneata var. sericea x Point Reyes horkelia Horkelia marinensis x legenere Legenere limosa x smooth lessingia Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata x x arcuate bush-mallow Malacothamnus arcuatus x Hall's bush-mallow Malacothamnus hallii x x marsh microseris Microseris paludosa x northern curly-leaved monardella Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens x woodland woollythreads Monolopia gracilens Kellman's bristle moss Orthotrichum kellmanii x x Dudley's lousewort Pedicularis dudleyi x Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongue Penstemon rattanii var. kleei x white-rayed pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidiflora x x Monterey pine Pinus radiata x x white-flowered rein orchid Piperia candida Choris' popcornflower Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus x San Francisco popcornflower Plagiobothrys diffusus x hairless popcornflower Plagiobothrys glaber x x Scotts Valley polygonum Polygonum hickmanii x x chaparral ragwort Senecio aphanactis x x Santa Cruz microseris Stebbinsoseris decipiens x x most beautiful jewelflower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus x x Santa Cruz clover Trifolium buckwestiorum x saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum x x Pacific Grove clover Trifolium polyodon x coast rockcress Arabis blepharophylla x Brewer's calandrinia Calandrinia breweri x Oakland star-tulip Calochortus umbellatus x pink star-tulip Calochortus uniflorus x johnny-nip Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua x 199 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report B-3 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Suitable Habitat Absent Edaphic Conditions Absent Outside Elevation Range Extirpated from Project Vicinity Monterey Coast paintbrush Castilleja latifolia x x x Monterey ceanothus Ceanothus rigidus x x Santa Clara red ribbons Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa branching beach aster Corethrogyne leucophylla x x clustered lady's-slipper Cypripedium fasciculatum x x mountain lady's-slipper Cypripedium montanum x California bottle-brush grass Elymus californicus San Francisco wallflower Erysimum franciscanum x x stinkbells Fritillaria agrestis x San Francisco gumplant Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima x x harlequin lotus Hosackia gracilis x serpentine leptosiphon Leptosiphon ambiguus x x large-flowered leptosiphon Leptosiphon grandiflorus x x redwood lily Lilium rubescens x small-leaved lomatium Lomatium parvifolium x x Mt. Diablo cottonweed Micropus amphibolus x Santa Cruz County monkeyflower Mimulus rattanii ssp. decurtatus x Gairdner's yampah Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri x Michael's rein orchid Piperia michaelii x Hickman's popcornflower Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. hickmanii x x Lobb's aquatic buttercup Ranunculus lobbii x Hoffmann's sanicle Sanicula hoffmannii x maple-leaved checkerbloom Sidalcea malachroides x marsh zigadenus Toxicoscordion fontanum x x 200 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report C-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 Appendix C. Detailed Descriptions of Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Study Area Federal and State Listed Species California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii). Federal status: Threatened; State status: Species of Special Concern. The California red-legged frog was listed as threatened in June 1996 (USFWS 1996) based largely on a significant range reduction and continued threats to surviving populations. Critical habitat was most recently designated in March 2010 (USFWS 2010), but designated critical habitat is not present in the study area. The historical distribution of the California red-legged frog extended from the city of Redding in the Central Valley and Point Reyes National Seashore along the coast, south to Baja California, Mexico. The species’ current distribution includes isolated locations in the Sierra Nevada and the San Francisco Bay area, and along the central coast (USFWS 2002). The California red-legged frog inhabits perennial freshwater pools, streams, and ponds throughout the Central California Coast Range and isolated portions of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada (Fellers 2005). Its preferred breeding habitat consists of deep perennial pools with emergent vegetation for attaching egg clusters (Fellers 2005), as well as shallow benches to act as nurseries for juveniles (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Non- breeding frogs may be found adjacent to streams and ponds in grasslands and woodlands, and may travel over 2 mi from their breeding locations across a variety of upland habitats to suitable nonbreeding habitats (Bulger et al. 2003, Fellers and Kleeman 2007). However, the distance moved is highly site-dependent, as influenced by the local landscape (Fellers and Kleeman 2007). Congress Springs Creek and its drainages are relatively high gradient streams , and emergent and low overhanging vegetation is generally absent. Thus, red-legged frogs are not expected to breed in the study area. Nevertheless, there is a recent record from Saratoga Creek, approximately 0.3 mi from the study area (CNDDB 2019), and potentially suitable breeding habitat has been identified in Quarry Park at the northern end of the project alignment (i.e., within dispersal distance) (City of Saratoga 2014). Thus, because the streams and riparian habitat in the study area provide ostensibly suitable foraging and dispersal habitat, non-breeding individuals may occur in the study area. California Species of Special Concern California Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. California giant salamanders are endemic to California. They range from Mendocino County south through the San Francisco Bay Area to Santa Cruz County, but do not occur in the East Bay (Kucera 1997). California giant salamanders occur in moist forests and riparian areas near clear, cold streams, seeps and ponds (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012). Breeding takes place primarily from March through May, but may also occur in the fall. This species prefers to breed in cold, clear running water but may also breed 201 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report C-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 in lakes and ponds. California giant salamanders do not occur on the Santa Clara Valley floor, but are found throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains, including multiple records from the vicinity of the study area (CNDDB 2019). California giant salamanders likely occur in small numbers in the study area, particularly along the creeks and streams. Santa Cruz Black Salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus niger). Federal status: None; State status: Species of Special Concern. The Santa Cruz black salamander is endemic to California and is found in moist streamside habitats in woodlands and forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains in western Santa Clara, northern Santa Cruz, and southernmost San Mateo Counties. This subspecies is mostly terrestrial, staying underground during dry periods and foraging for small invertebrates aboveground at night during wet weather. Females lay eggs in July or August (Petranka 1998 as cited in Thomson et al. 2016) in cavities below ground and may stay with the eggs until they hatch. Santa Cruz black salamanders do not occur on the Santa Clara Valley floor, but are found throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains, including multiple records from the vicinity of the study area, including a historical record from Congress Springs Canyon (CNDDB 2019). Santa Cruz black salamanders likely occur in small numbers in the study area, particularly along the creeks and streams. Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata). Federal status: None; State status: Species of Special Concern. The western pond turtle occurs in ponds, streams, and other wetland habitats in the Pacific slope drainages of California (Bury and Germano 2008). Ponds or slack-water pools with suitable basking sites (such as logs) are an important habitat component for this species, and western pond turtles do not occur commonly along high-gradient streams. Females lay eggs in upland habitats, in clay or silty soils in unshaded (often south- facing) areas (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Juveniles occur in shallow aquatic habitats (often creeks) with emergent vegetation and ample invertebrate prey. Nesting habitat is typically found within 600 ft of aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994), but if no suitable nesting habitat can be found close by, adults may travel overland considerable distances to nest. Western pond turtles have been recorded recently along a number of streams and rivers in Santa Clara County, and within a number of ponds and lakes, throughout much of the County away from northern, tidal stream reaches (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999, CNDDB 2019). All perennial creeks, many intermittent creeks, and most ponds that are not completely isolated by development have some potential to support this species. However, the cumulative stressors of urbanization, including release of non-native turtles, predation and harassment by pets and non-native mammals, capture by humans, degradation of water quality, loss of upland nesting habitat because of development, and the construction of barriers between creeks and nesting areas have reduced western pond turtle populations, and few areas exist where the species can be considered common. In particular, the scarcity of suitable expanses of nesting habitat makes the maintenance of viable populations unlikely along reaches of many creeks in the County. There are no historical or extant records of the western pond turtle from the study area, but the study area is connected to other potentially suitable habitat via Congress Springs Creek and Saratoga Creek, and because western pond turtles are long-lived and are known to travel overland, they can potentially occur in the study area. However, streams within the study area provide only 202 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report C-3 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 marginal quality habitat due to the paucity of open water and basking sites. Therefore, the species is not expected to use the study area for nesting or to occur in large numbers. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). Federal status: None; State status: Species of Special Concern (Nesting). Olive-sided flycatchers are associated with coniferous forest habitats and breed in mature forests with open canopies, along forest edges in more densely vegetated areas, in recently burned forest habitats, and in selectively harvested landscapes (Altman and Sallabanks 2000; Robertson and Hutto 2007). Olive-sided flycatchers nest in tall trees, building an open cup nest away from the main trunk in the middle to upper reaches of the tree (Widdowson 2008), and individuals exhibit high site fidelity. This species makes one of the longest annual migrations of any songbird, from the Andes Mountains of South America to boreal breeding grounds in the United States and Canada, arriving at their breeding territories beginning in mid-May and remaining until late July. This species breeds widely in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and more sparingly in the Diablo Range, but it does not breed on the Santa Clara Valley floor. Likely, few pairs nest at sites below 1,000 ft in elevation, but confirmed breeding has occurred at elevations as low as 400 ft (Bousman 2007). The riparian and mixed evergreen habitats in the study area provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. The species is known to nest in similar habitats in the vicinity (Bousman 2007) and is often detected in nearby parks during the nesting season (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019). San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). Federal status: None; State status: Species of Special Concern. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat occurs in a variety of woodland and scrub habitats throughout the South Bay and the adjacent Central Coast Range, south to the Pajaro River in Monterey County (Hall 1981, Zeiner et al. 1990). They prefer riparian and oak woodland forests with dense understory cover, or thick chaparral habitat (Lee and Tietje 2005). Dusky-footed woodrats build large, complex nests of sticks and other woody debris, which may be maintained by a series of occupants for several years (Carraway and Verts 1991). Woodrats also are very adept at making use of human-made structures, and can nest in electrical boxes, pipes, wooden pallets, and even portable storage containers. Woodrat nest densities increase with canopy density and with the presence of poison oak (Carraway and Verts 1991). Although the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is described as a generalist omnivore, individuals may specialize on local plants that are available for forage (Haynie et al. 2007). The breeding season for dusky-footed woodrat begins in February and sometimes continues through September, with females bearing a single brood of one to four young per year (Carraway and Verts 1991). Woodlands and scrub habitats in the study area provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species, and this species can be abundant in suitable habitat; numerous woodrat nests were observed in the study area during the reconnaissance survey. Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. Pallid bats are most commonly found in oak savannah and in open dry habitats with rocky areas, 203 Attachment B Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Study 204 TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tel (831) 425‐5832 Fax: (831) 425‐5830 e‐mail: timbest@coastgeo.com SARATOGA‐TO‐SANBORN TRAIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION City of Saratoga, CA May 2019 Project: SAR‐SAR2SAN‐767 Prepared for: Emma Burkhalter Assistant Engineer City of Saratoga – Public Works 12777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 205 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY HYDROLOGY TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 425‐5832 ● Fax: (831) 425‐5830 ● e‐mail: timbest@coastgeo.com May 15, 2019 Emma Burkhalter Assistant Engineer City of Saratoga – Public Works 12777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 JOB: SAR‐SAR2SAN‐767 REFERENCE: ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION: SARATOGA TO SANBORN TRAIL CONNECTION Dear Ms. Burkhalter: This report presents the results of our engineering geologic and geotechnical investigation of the proposed Saratoga to Sanborn Trail, located within the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. The project proposes to develop 3 miles of new recreational trail to connect Saratoga Quarry Park with Sanborn County Park. Approximately 2.7 miles of the project will be new trail construction with and additional 0.3 miles routed along an old unused and overgrown road. Four clear span trail bridges are proposed to cross Congress Springs Creek and three of its tributaries. This study evaluates the geologic and geotechnical conditions and hazards at the site and assesses the implications of the proposed project with respect to erosion and hillslope stability. The report is an update of our earlier 2015 and 2017 draft feasibility assessments to incorporate additional information and modification to the trail alignment. Included in this report and accompanying plan documents are recommendations for trail construction to mitigate the potential geologic risks to the extent feasible for the intended low‐intensity recreational use of the trail. The project is located in an area of steep mountainous terrain inherently subject to several geologic hazards, including landsliding, erosion, and severe seismic shaking. Portions of the trail will need to cross steep and potentially unstable ground that cannot be reasonably avoided. Portions of the trail may be subject to ground failure or damage in the event of a large storm or seismic event requiring periodic repairs, or in a worst case scenario, trail reconstruction. This level of stability is similar to that of other remote recreational trails found in similar terrain. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report and in the plan documents will mitigate this risk to a less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. The trail and trail structures will require routine inspection, maintenance and repair as needed to abate the risks from geologic hazards. 206 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG While damage to the trail and trail elements may occur in the event of an adverse seismic or climatic event, the risk to users from the geologic hazards is expected to be low due to the infrequent occurrence of instability and to the short duration and low frequency of trail use. Therefore the users of the trail, if exercising reasonable common sense, are not expected to be subject to risks from naturally occurring geologic hazards beyond a reasonable level of risk consistent with recreational trail use in remote settings, provided that the trail and trail structures are routinely inspected, maintained and repaired as needed. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the contents of this report. Very truly yours, Timothy C. Best Certified Engineering Geologist #1682 207 Page | i May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES .............................................................................................................................. 2 PHYSICAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................... 2 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING ......................................................................................................................... 2 PHYSIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................... 2 CLIMATE .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................................................... 4 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................................................ 4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................................................................... 4 REGIONAL FAULTS AND SEISMICITY ................................................................................................................ 6 LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY ................................................................................................................. 8 DRAINAGE AND EROSION ..................................................................................................................... 9 SITE OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 10 TRAIL ALIGNMENT OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 10 STA 0 – 45: SARATOGA QUARRY TRAIL HEAD ............................................................................................... 10 STA 155 – 165: DRY RAVINE .......................................................................................................................... 10 STA 865 – 1030: DRAINAGE FROM QUARRY ROAD ....................................................................................... 12 STA 1230: BRIDGE 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 12 STA 2565 – 2630: STEEP SLOPES .................................................................................................................. 12 STA 3850 – 4050: STEEP SLOPES ................................................................................................................... 12 STA 4480: BRIDGE 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 13 STA 4960 – 5800: STEEP AND POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES ................................................................... 13 STA 5865 – 6045: STEEP SLOPES ................................................................................................................... 14 STA 4960 ‐ 10775: DEEP‐SEATED LANDSLIDE AND TRAIL SWITCHBACKS ...................................................... 14 STA 11400: BRIDGE 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 15 STA 11705 – 11785: STEEP SLOPES ............................................................................................................... 15 STA 12760: BRIDGE 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 16 STA 14290 ‐ 16005: ROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSION ....................................................................................... 16 TRAIL BRIDGE SITE OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 16 BRIDGE 1: TRIBUTARY ................................................................................................................................... 16 BRIDGE 2: CONGRESS SPRINGS CREEK .......................................................................................................... 21 BRIDGE 3: TRIBUTARY ................................................................................................................................... 26 BRIDGE 4: TRIBUTARY ................................................................................................................................... 30 SUMMARY of GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND CONSTRAINTS ................................................................. 31 STEEP UNSTABLE SIDESLOPES ............................................................................................................ 31 DEEP‐SEATED LANDSLIDING ............................................................................................................... 32 TRAIL EROSION ................................................................................................................................... 32 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................. 32 WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS ............................................................................................................... 32 BRIDGE 1: ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 BRIDGE 2: ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 208 Page | ii May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG BRIDGE 3: ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 BRIDGE 4 ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 SEISMIC SHAKING ............................................................................................................................... 34 SWITCHBACKS .................................................................................................................................... 34 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 35 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 36 TRAIL DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 36 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL .................................................................................................. 37 BRIDGE DESIGN .................................................................................................................................. 38 BRIDGE 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 BRIDGE 2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 BRIDGE 3 ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 BRIDGE 5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND LATERAL PRESSURES .................................................................. 39 OTHER ................................................................................................................................................. 39 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 40 INVESTIGATIVE LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX A: BORING LOGS AND GEOTECHNICAL LAB WORK ........................................................... 1 APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY PLAN DOCUMENTS ............................................................................... 1 209 Page |1 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of our engineering geologic and geotechnical investigation of the proposed Saratoga ‐ Sanborn Trail, located within the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California (Figure 1). This report is an update of our earlier 2015 feasibility assessment of the proposed trail alignment and our draft 2017 feasibility assessment of the proposed bridge crossings to incorporate additional information and modification to the trail alignment. Conclusions and recommendations regarding site grading, drainage, and foundations are presented within this report, accompanying appendices and plan documents. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to develop 3 miles of new 4‐ to 5‐foot wide recreational trail that switchbacks up moderate to steep slopes to connect Saratoga Quarry Park with Sanborn County Park (Figure 1). Approximately 2.7 miles of trail will be new construction with 0.3 miles routed along an existing unused and overgrown road. New trail construction will require 18 switchbacks and approximately 955 feet of low (1 to 2.5 ft high) retaining walls. The trail will average a 5% to 12% sustained grade with short segments of up to 15%. The trail tread is to be unsurfaced and drained by frequent drain dips. The project includes 4 clear span bridges Bridge 1 is a 35 foot long x 6 foot wide steel stringer bridge with wood deck and railing to span a small intermittent watercourse. Bridge 2 is a 70 foot long x 6 foot wide steel or fiberglass truss bridge to span Congress Springs Creek Bridge 3 is a 50 foot long x 6 foot wide steel stringer bridge with wood deck and railing to span a small intermittent watercourse. Bridge 4 is a 20 foot long x 6 foot wide steel stringer or glulam bridge with wood deck and railing to span a very small ephemeral watercourse. Preliminary plan documents are found in Appendix B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS The design objectives as stated in the CITY’s August 7, 2019 request for proposal and discussed with the City include: All trails should be designed in accordance with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Trail Construction and Maintenance Guidelines and the Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines to the extent feasible. New trail shall be laid out to conform to natural terrain to create an alignment. The alignment should avoid long straight reaches. The alignment should incorporate natural terrain features to form required reverse grades to the extent feasible. Trail shall be constructed at a maximum 8 to 12% sustained grade. Short segments of up to 15% gradient may be allowed. 210 Page |2 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG Trail shall be constructed at a 4 to 5 foot width. The outer trail edge may need to be supported on a low retaining wall, as site conditions dictate. Trail shall incorporate frequent reverse grade dips. Incorporate climbing turns at switchbacks to the extent feasible. Recognize that a trail built across steep landslide prone areas may only be temporary, and may need to be rebuilt after slippage of a slide. Design shall minimize maintained to the extent feasible. All crossings shall have clear span bridges with abutments located outside the 100‐year flood elevation. SCOPE OF SERVICES This investigation was undertaken at the request of the City of Saratoga (CITY) to evaluate the geologic, geotechnical and hydrologic conditions at the project site, and to develop recommendations and design parameters to construct the trail. This study updates our earlier May 2015 study and May 2017 studies which evaluated the feasibility of the both the proposed trail and stream crossings, respectively. This investigation was undertaken in association with civil and hydraulic engineers Waterways Consulting (WW), geotechnical engineers Haro Kasunich and Associates, Inc. (HKA), and landscape architects Placeworks (PW). The full scope of services for this investigation is outlined in our agreement dated October 11, 2018 and in the CITY’s request for proposals dated August 7,2018. Work performed during this investigation included: Review of published geologic literature (see reference section of this report); Review of LiDAR‐derived bare earth digital elevation model (DEM); Geologic and geomorphic mapping of the trail alignment; Topographic mapping of three bridge sites Excavation of several hand dug test pits and ten hand auger borings; Geotechnical review of proposed bridge and select retaining walls sites Data analysis Discussions with City staff, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Staff, Santa Clara County Parks Staff, Placeworks, and HT Harvey (biological consultants); Preparation of this report and accompanying construction documents. PHYSICAL SETTING GEOGRAPHIC SETTING PHYSIOGRAPHY The project area is located on the south side of Saratoga Creek and Highway 9, within the lower Congress Springs Creek drainage (Figure 1). Congress Springs Creek is a tributary to Saratoga Creek. 211 à à à à BRIDGE 3 BRIDGE 2 BRIDGE 1 BRIDGE 4 SAN JOSE WATERCOMPANY QUARRYPARK WINERY(privateproperty) SANBORNCOUNTYPARK SANBORNCOUNTYPARK 16501500 1 5 5 0 19501500 800 1650750 180014 0 0 1600 1 6 5 0 1 2 0 0 700 600 800 155019001 1 5 0 1050 185 0 1900 165 0 18501 7 5 01200 185012501250120011 0 0 1200175012501800130013501 1 5 0 700 16001700 650750800 1650 16 0 0 8 5 0 9501 2 5 0 90010001050120011001 1 5 01300 1350 1550 1450150014 0 0 S a r atog a CreekCongress SpringsCreekCongressSpringsCreek PROJECT SITE Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri LOCATION MAP SARATOGA-TO-SANBORN TRAIL PROJECT City of Saratoga FIGURE 1 Job: SAR-SAR2SAN-767 Date: 5/15/2019 TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG 1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax) ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY ´0 500 1,000 Feet TRAIL CONSTRUCTION New Road to trail conversionàProposed Bridge ROADS Highway Paved Dirt STREAMS Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial PARCEL QUARRY PARK SANBORN PARK WINERY (private property) SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY VICINITY MAP 212 Page |4 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG The area is characterized by steep mountainous terrain dissected by narrow, steep sided V‐shaped ravines and stream valleys. Natural slopes range from less than 20% gradient along gently sloping ridgetops and midslope benches to more than 80% gradient along local steep streamside slopes and steep headwall swales. Broad alluvial sediments are found along the valley bottoms of Saratoga Creeks and lower Congress Springs Creek. Certain sections of tributary drainage channels appear partially filled by debris‐flow/landslide deposits (colluvium). These deposits often take on the appearance of a flat‐ bottomed section of an otherwise “V‐shaped” valley. Elevations range from 620 feet above sea level along Saratoga Creek to over 2,000 feet along the ridge top. The hillsides are underlain by a series of large‐scale deep‐seated bedrock landslides, several of which appear periodically active. The steep slopes that characterize much of the area are also subject to shallow landslide processes. Small debris fans are found at the mouths of many of the steep drainages. CLIMATE The climate is Mediterranean with high‐intensity rainfall in the winter and warm, dry summers with coastal fog. Rain is the dominant form of precipitation with most of the yearly rainfall coming between the months of November through March. Mean annual rainfall is 40.6 inches. The plan area is subject to very high rainfall intensities that can exceed 5.8 inches per hour for a 10 minute duration event with 100 year recurrence interval (USGS and CGS, 2006). VEGETATION The vegetation primarily consists of oak woodlands and chaparral with coniferous forest found locally along the valley bottoms of the larger watercourses. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The plan area is situated on the western flank of the Coast Range Physiographic Province of Northwest California, a series of coastal mountain chains paralleling the pronounced northwest‐southeast structural grain of northwest California. The San Andreas Fault Zone is the major geologic feature of the region, and is located about 1.5 miles northeast from the site. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Bedrock Geology The property is located on the south side of the Berrocal Fault Zone which is a late Quaternary southwest‐dipping reverse fault zone that forms a part of what McLaughlin et al. (1996) refer to as the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley thrust belt. At this location the fault thrusts bedrock of the Mesozoic Franciscan Complex to the south over sediment of the Pliocene‐Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation to the north (Brabb et al., 2000; WCA, 1977) (Figure 2). The project area is mapped as entirely underlain by bedrock of the Franciscan Complex (Figure 2). Franciscan rocks are described by WCA (1977) and Brabb et al. (2000) as predominantly massive to thick bedded fractured greywacke sandstone with interbedded siltstone and shale (fs), and pervasively sheared rock (fsr). 213 GEOLOGIC MAPSARATOGA-TO-SANBORN TRAIL PROJECTCity of Saratoga FIGURE 2Job: SAR-SAR2SAN-767Date: 5/15/2019 TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG 1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax) ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! à à à à BRIDGE 3 BRIDGE 2 BRIDGE 1 BRIDGE 4 SAN JOSEWATERCOMPANY WINERY(privateproperty) QUARRYPARK SANBORNCOUNTYPARK SANBORNCOUNTYPARK 600 140 0 1 6 0 0 1200180018001800 12 0 0 160018001400160 0800100014001200fs fsr fsr fsr fsr QTsc fs fc fs fsr fg fsr db fs fs fs Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qlsm Qal Qc Qc Qal Qf Qoal Qlsm Qlsm Qal Qoal Qoal Qlsm Qlsm Sara t o gaCreekCongre ssS pringsCreekCongressSpringsCreek ´0 500 1,000Feet Geologic Map from:Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W. and Jones, D.L., 2000.Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30' x 60'quadrangle, California. U. S. Geological Survey,Miscellaneous Field Studies MF-2332, scale 1:24,000.Landslides and surfical deposits mapped from LiDAR PARCEL SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY QUARRY PARK SANBORN PARK WINERY (private property) TRAIL CONSTRUCTIONNewRoad to Trail ConversionàProposed Bridge CONTACTS contact fault, certain fault, approx. located !! ! !!fault, concealed GEOLOGY UNITS Qc: Colluvium Qal: Alluvium Qf:Debris fan Qoal: Old alluvium Qlsm: Landslide mass QTsc: Santa Clara Formation fs: Franciscan sandstone fg: Franciscan greenstone fc: Franciscan chert fsr: Franciscan sheared rock db: Diabase and gabro 214 Page |6 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG During our site reconnaissance, we observed Franciscan sandstone (fs) outcrops generally consistent with the mapping of Brabb et al. (2000). Where exposed the rock is characterized as fine‐ to coarse‐ grained, moderately hard, strong and closely to moderately fractured. Franciscan sheared rock The Franciscan sheared rock (fsr) is a tectonic mixture of sheared shale and sandstone). This rock is typically more deeply weathered than the sandstone and therefore is not well exposed along the ground surface. Soils and Surfical Sediments Colluvium and Soils: Mantling bedrock is a thin to thick veneer of weathered bedrock, late Pleistocene to Holocene age colluvium and soils. Colluvial deposits are found nearly everywhere across the hillside, however are thickest toward the axes of swales and toe slopes. The steeper slopes tend to be underlain by more competent bedrock at shallower depth. Colluvial deposits and surfical are variable depending on the underlying bedrock martials. In areas underlain by Franciscan sandstone the surfical soils are relatively thin and typically comprised of moderately well drained, loose to medium dense gravel and sand with trace silt and clay fractions; in areas underlain by Franciscan sheared rock the surfical soils are a more deeply weathered sandy silt to silty clay with local angular clasts of fractured sandstone. A seasonal perched water table may develop on top of the more competent bedrock. In general, the geologic materials are generally suitable for trail construction; however, may be locally susceptible to erosion where runoff is concentrated and to instability where slopes are steep. Alluvium: Alluvium and alluvial terrace deposits are found along Congress Springs Creek. These materials generally consist of unconsolidated granular deposits of sand and gravel with a low percentage of fines. Alluvial deposits are generally suitable for trail construction, however are susceptible to erosion where runoff is concentrated and subject to undercutting where adjacent to Congress Springs Creek. Landslide Deposits: Landslide deposits have been identified in isolated areas on the subject property. These materials generally consist of unconsolidated displaced surficial soil and bedrock materials. They include sediment derived from shallow rapid debris flows and relatively intact blocks of bedrock incorporated in deeper‐seated landslides. The suitability of these deposits for trail construction is variable and generally a function of slope steepness, soil type, and landslide hazard. Where slopes are steep and the slide mass is found to be potentially active there is the potential for future slope instability to damage trail requiring trail repairs. The trail can also be impacted by landslide debris originating from upslope source areas. REGIONAL FAULTS AND SEISMICITY The subject property is located within a highly seismically‐active region of California. A broad system of inter‐related northwest‐southeast trending strike‐slip faults represents a segment of the boundary between the Pacific and North American crustal plates. For approximately the past 15 million years (mid‐Miocene) the Pacific plate has been slipping northwestward with respect to the North American plate (Atwater, 1970; Graham and Dickinson, 1978). The majority of movement has been taken up by 215 Page |7 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG the San Andreas Fault itself; however, there are other faults within this broad system that have also experienced movement at one time or another. San Andreas Fault: The San Andreas Fault is an active, northwest‐trending right lateral strike slip fault zone and represents the major seismic hazard in northern California. The main trace of the fault trends northeast‐southwest and extends over 700 miles from the Gulf of California through the Coast Range to Point Arena, where the fault extends offshore. The San Andreas Fault was responsible for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (Mw 7.9) and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Mw 7.0). The San Andreas Fault is located about 1.5 miles northwest of the project site. This segment of the fault has been assigned a slip rate that results in a Mw 7.3 earthquake with a recurrence interval of 400 years (WGOCEP, 1996). Berrocal Fault Zone: The Berrocal Fault Zone, which transects the property, is a Late Quaternary to possibly Holocene active, poorly constrained reverse to oblique slip fault zone located along the base of the eastern flank of the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains. It is part of the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley thrust belt that also includes the Sargent, Monta Vista and Shannon Faults (McLaughlin et al., 1996). Most researchers consider the Santa Clara Valley thrust belt to be potentially active, based upon the geomorphology along the fault zone, as well as loose knit evidence of syntectonic movement during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Bryant, 2000). Fault Rupture The project site is not in an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no mapped active faults transecting the bridge sites. Based on the foregoing the potential risk of fault rupture is low. Seismic Shaking The project site is in a seismically active area in close proximity to the San Andreas Fault Zone, a major potential source of severe seismic shaking. High ground accelerations would be expected during a large earthquake on this fault or other nearby faults. Site soil conditions are important in determining seismic design parameters. The NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions uses the concept of Site Class to categorize common soil conditions into broad classes to which typical ground motion attenuation and amplification effects are assigned. Site Class is determined based on the average properties of the soil within 100 feet of the ground surface. According to the soil type and earthquake shaking hazard map for the San Francisco Bay Area (USGS, 2017a), which illustrates a rough estimate of surface geology, the project site soil is characterized as soil type A (the most stable classification of rock or soil) or B (rock or soil less stable than type A). Soil types A and B are not expected to contribute greatly to shaking amplification in the event of an earthquake. The U.S. Geological Survey (2017b) have developed U.S. Seismic Design Maps that depict seismic design parameters based on a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. The Beta version of the U.S. Seismic Design Maps (USGS, 2017b) provides seismic parameter values from the 2015 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other 216 Page |8 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG Structures. The (USGS, 2017b) reports that seismic design parameter values are proposed for use in future editions of major U.S. building codes (International Building Code, ASCE 7 Standard). The Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) on Site Class B soils (rock) at the subject site is reported by the USGS (2017b) to be 1.02 g. We recommend that the proposed bridge structures be designed for seismic shaking in accordance with the latest version of the California Building Code (CBC). Conformance to these criteria, however, does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a very large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, and not necessarily to avoid structural damage, since achieving such design may be economically and environmentally prohibitive Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary loss of shear strength due to pore pressure buildup from the cyclic shear stress associated with earthquakes. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are: strong ground shaking, relatively clean loose granular soils, and saturated soil conditions. Lateral spreading is lateral ground movement, with some vertical component, as a result of liquefaction. The soil literally rides on top of the liquefied layer. Lateral spreading can occur on relatively flat sites with slopes less than two percent under certain circumstances. Lateral spreading can cause ground cracking and settlement. We reviewed the Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region (Witter et al., 2006). These maps do not depict Quaternary age deposits at the project site and report the liquefaction hazard to be low; the lateral spreading hazard is thus low to nonexistent. LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY Landslides are common throughout the central Santa Cruz Mountains and are one of the dominant geologic forces shaping the modern landscape. Oversteepened slopes from tectonic uplift and rapid downcutting of streams, in concert with high intensity rainfall and intense seismic shaking have contributed to the high occurrence of shallow and deep‐seated landslides within the project area. Deep‐Seated Landslide Review of bare earth LiDAR imagery reveal that portions of the property are underlain by a series of relatively slow moving large‐scale deep‐seated translational block slides and earthflows (Figure 2). These failures are characterized by benched topography and are formed by translational movement of a relatively intact mass with a failure plane that extends below the colluvial layer into the underlying bedrock. The slides typically consist of several smaller secondary blocks that coalesce together to form a larger landslide complex. Deep‐seated landslides tend to fail incrementally in response to intense ground shaking from earthquakes on nearby faults (such as the 1906 San Francisco earthquake or 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake) and/or from prolonged heavy rainfall. 217 Page |9 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG The landslides in the project area demonstrate varying levels of activity. Many appear weathered and subdued and are forested with straight‐standing second growth conifers and old growth stumps. These slides correspond to the "dormant‐young" morphological age classification of Keaton and DeGraff (1996). Other slides show signs of relatively recent small‐scale incipient movement based on “soft terrain features”, localized discontinuous scarps, leaning trees, and juvenile drainage patterns. Overall, the deep‐seated landslide rate appears to be slow and episodic. We did not observe any clear evidence of recent activity following the 2017 and 2019 storms. Based on our field observations of slide morphology, we interpret the slides to be potentially active with slope displacements possible in the event of a large magnitude earthquake or large storms. In our opinion, future slide movement would most likely result in small scale ground displacements on the order of a few inches to several feet. Better quantification of ground displacement would require a detailed geotechnical investigation incorporating subsurface exploration (which would be difficult if not impossible to undertake due to the remote nature of the site and lack of access for drill rigs), laboratory testing, slope stability modeling and Newmark analysis; all of which is outside the scope of this study. Shallow Landslides The geomorphology of the hillslopes surrounding the project area is consistent with infrequent shallow landslide processes. Shallow landslides are classified as debris slides, debris flows and channel bank failures and are characterized by rapid, shallow (generally less than 7 feet thick) downslope movement of surficial soil, colluvium, and weathered bedrock. Natural shallow landslides are a function of slope gradient, soil strength and depth, groundwater and vegetation. Most natural shallow slides are triggered by elevated porewater pressures resulting from high intensity and/or long duration rainfall, or from being undercut by stream bank erosion. Future shallow landslides will occur within the area during adverse climatic or seismic conditions regardless of landuse activities. During our field review we observed equivocal evidence of several shallow debris slide scars within the project area. Most of the slides appear old and were not apparent in the historic aerial photographs. It should be understood, however, that small landslides that occurred underneath tree cover may be obscured in the aerial photographs and imagery and therefore may not have been identified. The majority of observed shallow slides are found along the banks of deeply incised watercourse and to a lesser extent on local steep slopes exceeding 70% gradient (Figure 3), and these slopes are generally found to have a moderate to high potential for debris flows and debris slides. Although no recent or historic landslides were observed along the proposed trail alignment, site geomorphology, including the existence of locally steep slopes and presence of scattered old debris slide scars indicates that debris slides and debris flows are potential geologic hazards along portions of the proposed trail. DRAINAGE AND EROSION Surface drainage is primarily by sheetwash with concentrated ephemeral overland flow occurring within the three watercourses. Groundwater was not observed during my field review. A seasonal perched groundwater table could develop within the colluvial soils capping bedrock. 218 Page |10 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG Soils are primarily a gravely loam that based on field observations tend to be moderately well drained with a moderate erosion potential. Review of nearby unsurfaced roads and trails crossing similar earth materials reveal low trail erosion where the trail grade is less than 15% and runoff is adequately controlled. SITE OBSERVATIONS TRAIL ALIGNMENT OBSERVATIONS The following are pertinent field observations along the proposed trail exclusive of the trail bridges. See Figure 3 for a site map. Segments of trail not described do not have significant geologic constraints. STA 0 – 45: SARATOGA QUARRY TRAIL HEAD Site Conditions Proposed trail begins on Saratoga Quarry property at an existing road switchback with a small turn out. At this location, the quarry road is drained by a shallow inboard ditch past the trail entrance and then down a small ravine. The road ditch is relatively shallow with local ponding of water. The road cut is about 5 feet high and inclined at steeper than 1:1. Earth materials are clayey sand with some gravel. The segment of the old quarry road beyond this location is steep (greater than 20% grade) and poorly drained resulting in road runoff to concentrate for a long distance. This has resulted in some erosion of the road with the deposition of sediment near the location of the proposed trail head. Recommendations The new trail will need to ramp up over the road cut a 3 foot deep on a fill bench for a distance of about 30 feet before reaching gentler ground. An 18 inch diameter by 35 foot long ditch relief culvert will need to be installed to convey ditch runoff past the past the swale. The upslope inboard ditch should also be cleaned. The City should consider improving road drainage along the quarry road to minimize the amount of runoff that can be concentrated. Ongoing maintenance of the road ditch and culvert will be required. STA 155 – 165: DRY RAVINE Site Conditions The proposed trail crosses an incised dry ravine associated with old quarry operations. The ravine is about 10 feet wide and roughly 5 to 6 feet deep with channel gradient of about 45%. Earth materials are primarily and gravel originating from the old quarry operations. A small bench is found a short distance down slope. We observed no evidence of overland flow and interpret the ravine to be a relic feature. Recommendations Install a new 18" X 25' HDPE culvert and build up the road prism on approximately 15 cy of compacted fill. Fill shall be keyed into firm native soils. Suitable fill can be obtained from full bench Construction on adjacent segments of the trail. 219 àààà@A@A@A@A@A@A@A@A@A@A@A0 500950090008500800075007 0 0 0 650060005500 5000 4500 4000350030002500200015001000 16000 1550 0 15000 14500 14000 13500 13000 12 5 0 012000115001100010500 10000 QUARRY PARK CONGRESSSPRINGSROAD(HWY9)CONGRESSSPRINGSCREEKPROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE) PRIVATEWINERYROADWAY WATERDISTRICTUTILITYROADPROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE) SHEET C2.5 SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5SB6 SB7 SB8 SB9 SB10 SB11 SB12 SB13 SB14 SB15 SB16 SB17 SB18 PG&E POWER LINE CORRIDORPG&ETOWERACCES S R D Qlsm Qoal Qal Qoal Qal Qlsm Qlsm SaratogaCreekCongressSp rin g s C re e kSTA 865 – 1030: DRAINAGE PROBLEM FROM QUARRY ROAD0STA 0 – 45: SARATOGA QUARRY TRAIL HEAD STA 155 – 165: DRY RAVINE STA 1230: BRIDGE 1 STA 2565 – 2630: STEEP SLOPES STA 3850 – 4050: STEEP SLOPES STA 4960 – 5800:STEEP AND POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES: STA 4480: BRIDGE 2 STA 5865 – 6045:STEEP SLOPES STA 4960 - 10775: DEEP-SEATED LANDSLIDE AND TRAIL SWITCHBACKS STA 11400: BRIDGE 3 STA 11705 – 11785: STEEP SLOPES STA 12760:BRIDGE 4: STA 14290 - 16005:ROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSION STA 16005:WINERY TRAILHEAD B7 B1 HT1 B10 B8 B5 B4 B6 B2 B3 B9 STA 11400: BRI DGE 3Date: 5/15/2019Revised: Project: SAR-SAR2SAN-767FIGURE3SARATOGA-TO-SANBORNTRAIL PROJECTSITE MAPTIMOTHY C. BEST, CEGENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)0 100 200 Feet ´à Proposed Trail Proposed Road to Trail Conversion Proposed Bridge Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Ephemeral Stream Highway Private Road Existing Dirt Road Alluvial Sediments Exploratory Boring@A GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Steep Slopes (>70%) Deep Seated Landslides TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP GENERATED FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTYLIDAR DATA 220 Page |12 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG STA 865 – 1030: DRAINAGE FROM QUARRY ROAD At this site concentrated storm runoff draining off of the upslope quarry road flows across the trail alignment resulting in erosion and sedimentation. If left unmitigated this will result in damage to the proposed trail. Recommendations Drainage on the quarry road should be improved by installing drain dips to break up the flow. STA 1230: BRIDGE 1 At this site the trail will span an intermittent watercourse on a 35 foot long bridge. See TRAIL BRIDGE SITE OBSERVATIONS (page 16) for a more in‐depth description of this site. STA 2565 – 2630: STEEP SLOPES Site Conditions About 65 feet of new trail will climb up across 65% to 80% escarpment above a midslope bench. The escarpment is likely an internal slide scarp to a large deep‐seated landslide which underlies the majority of the hillside at this location. No evidence of recent deep‐seated slide activity. The steep slope may be subject to infrequent shallow landslide process which could deposit debris onto the trail tread. Recommendations To minimize the risk of trail related instability, the trail should be constructed at a maximum 4 foot wide width with the outer edge of the trail supported on a retaining wall or rock fill bench. STA 3850 – 4050: STEEP SLOPES Site Conditions Approximately 200+ feet of new trail will traverse steep 65% to 80% gradient slightly irregular slopes subject to shallow landslide processes. Earth materials exposed on the ground surface and encountered in one shallow hand auger boring (B‐8) consists of gravely clayey sand. Depth to bedrock is unknown. No seeps or wet areas observed. During our field review we observed equivocal evidence of several old weathered and subdued debris slide scars across the hillsides. These features appeared to have been relatively shallow slides restricted to the thin mantle of overlying soil and colluvium. The ages of these shallow landslide features are unknown and we did not observe clear evidence of historic shallow instability in our review of select historic aerial photographs. Based on field observations we find there is a moderate potential for future shallow slope instability to occur in this area. This risk is similar to that on other recreational trails that cross similarly steep slopes. The location of the trail across seep and potentially unstable slopes places the trail at risk from upslope debris slides and flows. This hazard cannot be avoided in any practical manner. Future upslope instability could result in damage to the trail requiring maintenance or reconstruction. In addition, improper trail construction across these steep sideslopes can increase the risk of shallow landsliding by removing toe support to the hillside. This risk can be mitigated by constructing the trail at a 4 foot width 221 Page |13 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG with minimal cut and supporting the outer edge of the trail on a low 1 to 2.5 foot high retaining wall. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report and in the plan documents will mitigate this risk to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. Recommendations We recommend the trail be constructed at a 4 foot width with minimal cut and the outer edge of the trail supported on a low 1 to 2.5 foot high retaining wall. Trail drainage shall be strictly controlled and maintained. Periodic maintenance of the trail will be required. STA 4480: BRIDGE 2 Bridge 2 is a proposed 70 foot long trail bridge to span Congress Springs Creek. See TRAIL BRIDGE SITE OBSERVATIONS (page 16) for a more in‐depth description of this site. STA 4960 – 5800: STEEP AND POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES Site Conditions At this location the proposed trail will need to climb up across steep (65% to 80%) and slightly benched ground that appears to be subject to both shallow and deep‐seated landslide hazards. Earth materials exposed along the ground surface and in one shallow hand auger boring (B‐5) consisted of sandy gravely silt to clayey silt. Review of LiDAR bare earth imagery and field reconnaissance finds the south facing slope above Congress Spring Creek to be underlain by a large 3 acre deep‐seated translational landslide complex. The majority of this slide is characterized by generally weathered and subdued ground without evidence of recent or active movement and corresponding to the "dormant‐young" morphological age classification of Keaton and DeGraff (1996). A few scattered trees on steeper sideslopes are slightly pistol‐butted or have broad sweeps, which is most likely due to shallow soil creep rather than global instability. Though the majority of this slide appears dormant, a couple portions of this slide have experience relatively recent small scale slope instability. The first area of relatively recent instability was observed about 150 to 300 feet upslope of Bridge Site 2. This area encompasses about ¼ acres of ground characterized by a small midslope bench with a couple of slightly leaning conifers and a small lobate toe that bulges out onto the steep slope below. This feature appears to be an area of incipient shallow secondary instability and based on the age of the leaning trees likely occurred 30 to 50 years ago. The long term stability of this area is uncertain and based on field observations alone appears to have a moderate potential for future instability in the event of a large magnitude storm or earthquake. Future displacements could range from small scale ground cracking to the mobilization of a larger debris slide. As currently laid out the proposed trail traverses the hillside downslope of this feature before switchbacking and crossing the upper portion of the slide area on gentler ground at SB# 4. Site conditions are such that it is not feasible to avoid this area in any practical manner. The second area of recent instability is a roughly ¼ acre secondary translational slide block located about 100 feet downstream of the bridge site in an area where Congress Springs Creek has directly undercut the hillside. In this area the slide block has down dropped resulting in a couple of conifer trees on the 222 Page |14 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG slide mass to tilt. This secondary slide is located away from the trail and does not present a direct hazard to the trail or trail bridge. In our opinion, there is a moderate potential for future shallow and deep‐seated landsliding on these slopes in the event of a large magnitude earthquake or storm. Moving forward with trail design will have to be done with the understanding that infrequent slope displacements are possible and cannot be avoided in a practical manner. As a result, future slope displacements could result in damage to the trail requiring repairs or reconstruction. The geologic risk to trail users, however, will be low due to the low frequency and short duration use of the trail, which limits user’s exposure to the geologic hazards. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report and in the plan documents will mitigate this risk to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. Recommendations To minimize the risk of trail related instability, we recommend the trail be constructed along the flagged alignment at a 4 foot width with minimal cut and the outer edge of the trail supported on a low retaining wall. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report and in the plans will mitigate this risk to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. STA 5865 – 6045: STEEP SLOPES Site Conditions About 180 feet of new trail is proposed across steep 65% to 75% gradient planar slopes above a tributary to Congress Springs Creek. Earth materials exposed along the ground surface in the first third of the trail alignment consisted of sandy gravel to gravely sand with blocky sandstone at shallow depth. Earth materials exposed along the ground surface and in a shallow hand auger boring (B‐4) in the latter two thirds of the alignment consisted of soft to still gravely silty clay with sand. No shallow landslides of significance were observed and based on field observations appears to be a low to moderate potential for shallow slope instability. Recommendations To minimize the risk of trail related instability, the trail should be constructed at a maximum 4 foot width. In the area of the clayey soils, the outer edge of the trail will likely need to be supported on a low retaining wall or rock fill bench. During trail construction a silt fence should be installed below the trail to contain any debris that may ravel off the work area before reaching the stream STA 4960 - 10775: DEEP-SEATED LANDSLIDE AND TRAIL SWITCHBACKS Site Conditions Approximately 5,800 feet of new trail will need to switchback up moderate to steep (40% to 65%) slopes within a tributary drainage to Congress Springs Creek that is partially underlain by a 10+ acre deep‐ seated landslide complex. Sixteen switchbacks will be required to route the trail up the hillside and to avoid steep unstable ground. The deep‐seated landslide is characterized by benched and irregular forested ground with “soft” terrain 223 Page |15 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG features corresponding to the "dormant‐young" to “dormant‐historic” morphological age classification of Keaton and DeGraff (1996). The slide is comprised of multiple smaller coalescing secondary slide blocks that likely move independently of one another. The slide is drained by an intermittent tributary to Congress Springs Creek, which is deeply incised into the landscape resulting in locally very steep and unstable channel banks. This slide exhibits varying degrees of activity. Though the majority of the slide appears dormant, portions of the slide have experience relatively recent small scale slope instability based on the presence of a few leaning trees. Based on field observations we find the large slide to be subject to reactivation during large storms or intense seismic shaking during earthquakes. The most likely scenario would be for small‐scale incipient movement resulting in local ground cracking that could offset portions of the trail if future deep‐seated slide movement were to occur. Because of the small cuts and fills associated with narrow trail construction in comparison to total slide depth, the proposed trail should not have any measurable impact on the mass balance and stability of the overall larger landslide. The principal constraints to new trail construction are the steep and unstable slopes found along the incised watercourse draining the slide. To minimize the risk of trail related instability, the proposed trail will need to switchback up the east flank of the slide to avoid crossing steep and unstable terrain adjacent to the deeply incised watercourse draining the center of the slide mass. This will mitigate landslide risk to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. Recommendations We recommend the trail make a series of sixteen tight switchbacks up the left flank of the slide. Portions of the trail grade will need to be relatively steep at up to 18%. Where possible the trail should incorporate broad climbing turns at the switchbacks to minimize trail degradation. At two locations (SB#3 and #13) the project proposes switchbacks on 60% planar slopes which will prove challenging to construct. To minimize the amount of grading the switchback will need to be constructed with a relatively tight 7 foot turning radius. The resulting cut will be about 7 feet high with the outer edge of the trail supported on 4 to 5 foot high retaining structures (e.g. Allen block or rock). STA 11400: BRIDGE 3 Bridge 2 is a proposed 50 foot long trail bridge to span an incised intermittent stream. There are no significant geologic constraints at this crossing. See TRAIL BRIDGE SITE OBSERVATIONS (page 16) for a more in‐depth description of this site. STA 11705 – 11785: STEEP SLOPES Site Conditions About 80 feet of new trail is proposed across steep 75% to 80% gradient. Earth materials exposed along the ground surface consist of gravely sandy silt with some clay. No recent shallow landslides of significance were observed. Recommendations To minimize the risk of trail related instability, the trail should be constructed at a maximum 4 foot 224 Page |16 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG width. In the area of the clayey soils, the outer edge of the trail will likely need to be supported on a low retaining wall or rock fill bench. STA 12760: BRIDGE 4 Bridge 4 is a proposed 20 foot long trail bridge to span a very small and shallow ephemeral watercourse. There are no significant geologic constraints at this crossing. See TRAIL BRIDGE SITE OBSERVATIONS (page 16) for a more in‐depth description of this site. STA 14290 - 16005: ROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSION Site Conditions Trail follows existing intact but overgrown road for 1,700 feet before connecting with paved winery road. The old road contours across 20% to 50% slopes at an 8 foot width. The entire road is weathered but intact with no significant erosion of instability problems. Several large trees have become established along the roadway but can be easily avoided. There are no significant constraints on this segment of trail. Recommendations Standard road to trail conversion is appropriate. TRAIL BRIDGE SITE OBSERVATIONS BRIDGE 1: TRIBUTARY Site Conditions Bridge 1 is located where the proposed trail will need to span an intermittent stream draining a 26 acre forested watershed. The site is located at the mouth of a narrow and deeply incised ravine where the watercourse drains onto and spreads out across the back edge of a gently sloping alluvial/colluvial filled valley bottom (Figure 4). The upstream ravine is characterized by very steep unstable banks subject to shallow debris slides and debris flows and we observed many small debris slide scars along the steep ravine walls upstream of the crossing. The flashy nature of site hydrology and unstable nature of the watershed can lead to the development of flood events that can carry significant quantities of sediment. Past debris flows extending down the narrow ravine have deposited slide debris (as a debris fan) at the ravine mouth. About 80 feet downstream of the ravine mouth, the watercourse spreads out and bifurcates across the gently sloping valley bottom in response to large depositional events. In this area the stream channel is poorly confined and recent deposition is evident following the 2017 winter storms with subsequent incision in 2018‐19. The broad alluvial/colluvial filled valley located downstream of the crossing is likely associated with one or more large scale deep‐seated landslides located on either side of the valley. These slides may have pinched the valley bottom allowing for sediment to deposit and form the current broad valley bottom that we see today. 225 Page |17 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG Photo 1: Photo looking downstream at proposed upstream crossing. We evaluated two locations where the trail could cross the stream. These two sites include: 1) An upstream crossing location at the ravine mouth and 2) A downstream crossing location on the flat bench. Upstream site: The upstream site is located at the mouth of the ravine on old slide debris formed by past debris flows extending down the channel. The advantage of this crossing site is the stream is well constrained in the incised channel making a bridge a viable alternative. It also places the crossing at a higher elevation and thereby minimizes the amount of new trail construction across steep sideslopes to the south. The disadvantage is that the location of the bridge at the mouth of the ravine places the bridge at risk from future upslope debris flows. If these future slides are large enough they could impact the bridge structure, potentially damaging or destroying it. Elevating the bridge above the old slide debris will minimize this geologic risk. 226 ((((((((@A @A (N) 35-ft TRAIL BRIDGE(N) MULTI-USE TRAIL Qdfold Qdf Qc/Qal Qlsm R a v i n e Debris fan deposit extending out of ravine I n t e rm i t t e n t S t r e am 89088087086088 0 B9 B10 à Qlsm Qc/Qal Qoal Qal QuarryPark San Jose Water Company property lineQuarry Park property lineSa ra to g a CreekCongressSpringsCreekQc/Qal filled valley Bridge 1 CongressSpringsCreek12007507 5 0 1200 8001 1 5 0650115075070080011 0 0 105 0 10 0 0 95 0 850 90 0 à LEGEND: ??????? ????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! Qlsm QdfoldQdf (N) BRIDGE ABUTMENT(SCHEMATIC) (N) 35-ft TRAIL BRIDGE(SCHEMATIC)(N) FILL860' 880' 875' 870' 865' 0 10 20Feet ´ 0 150 300Feet ´ Note: Contour lines based on topographicsurvey and LIDAR bare earth data. Proposed Trail Proposed Bridge Intermittent Stream Existing Fire Road Existing Dirt Road Existing Tractor Trail Alluvial Sediments Deep Seated Landslide Proposed Trail Proposed Bridge Top of Channel Bank Slope Break Geologic contact dashed where approximate Stream Tree Suvey Control Point Limit of Topographic Survey Qc/Qal: Colluvial/Alluvial Deposits Qdf: Debris Fan Deposits Qlsm: Landslide Mass #0 LOCATION MAP SITE MAP CROSS SECTION 0 5 10Feet Date:5/15/2019Revised: Project: SAR-SAR2SAN-767FIGURE4SARATOGA-TO-SANBORNTRAIL PROJECTSITE MAP / CROSS SECTION - BRIDGE 1TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEGENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)227 Page |19 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG Downstream site: The downstream crossing site is located on the gently sloping alluvial bench downstream of the ravine mouth (not shown on Figure 4). In this area the site is characterized by low <5% gradient slopes and a shallow, poorly constrained stream channel. In this area the stream appears to migrate and bifurcate across the valley bottom in response to large depositional events. The advantage of this site is that it is located on gentle ground away from the ravine mouth and therefore less at risk from direct impact of a future debris flow. The disadvantage is that it is located in an area of deposition where the stream channel location is poorly constrained and subject to future migration and bifurcation. As a result the trail will be at risk for flooding and deposition. This risk could be mitigated by installing a long bridge across the entire valley bottom. A second problem is that the trail extending south out of the crossing will need to cross a greater length of steep slopes and require at least one additional switchback on moderate to steep slopes compared to the upstream alternative. As a result the trail approach would be at greater risk of instability compared to the upstream alternative. Summary: Both the upstream and downstream sites are viable for crossing the stream, though not without risk. All things considered, including geologic hazards, trail aesthetics, and bridge approach stability, we believe the upstream site is the more feasible alternative of the two. Though the location of the bridge at the mouth of the ravine places the bridge at risk from future upslope debris flows, large debris flows capable of damaging or destroying the bridge occur only infrequently. The geologic risk to bridge users, however, will be low due to the low frequency and short duration use of the trail bridge, which limits bridge user’s exposure to the geologic hazards. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report will mitigate this risk to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. Subsurface Conditions The Bridge 1 site at the mouth of the ravine is directly underlain by debris flow deposits consisting of medium brown unconsolidated clayey sand to silty sand with local abundant clasts of siltstone and sandstone. The deposits tend to be well graded. The debris flow deposits overlay Franciscan bedrock at depth. The depth to bedrock is unknown. Haro, Kasunich and Associates drilled two hand auger borings to evaluate soil conditions at the bridge abutments (See Appendix A). Sieve analysis was performed on a soil sample taken at a depth of 2 feet below existing grade. Results of the sieve analysis indicate the bearing material consists of 9.0 % gravel, 41.0 % sand, and 50.0 % clay and silt fractions. The relative density of the soil increased at a depth of 1.5 feet below existing grade from very loose to medium dense to dense. The relative density was estimated by applying full body weight to a ½ inch diameter smooth steel rod at various depths within borings B‐10 and B‐9 drilled adjacent the proposed bridge abutments. Haro, Kasunich and Associates report that from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the native soils 1.5 feet below existing grade will provided adequate bearing support for the proposed bridge abutments at the Bridge 1 site. Pertinent Geologic Hazards The following summarizes the geologic hazards at the upstream bridge site. Faulting, Seismic Shaking and Liquefaction: There are no mapped faults transecting the Bridge 1 site. Based on the foregoing the potential risk of fault rupture appears low. 228 Page |20 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG The Bridge 1 site is subject to high ground accelerations during a large earthquake on the San Andreas Fault or other nearby faults. Please refer to REGIONAL FAULTS AND SEISMICITY (page 6) for a more in‐ depth discussion. Regional Liquefaction Maps (Witter et al., 2006) do not depict Quaternary age deposits at the project site and report the liquefaction hazard to be low. Our field observations of the clayey sand and silty sand that underlie the upstream bridge site also finds the liquefaction hazard at the site to be low. Landsliding: Deep‐seated landsliding: Review of LiDAR bare earth imagery and field reconnaissance finds the Bridge 1 site to be underlain by a 4+ acre deep‐seated landslide. We did not observe any clear evidence of recent activity, such as fresh scarps or ground cracks on the portions of these slides near the bridge sites following the 2017 winter storms. Based on the foregoing, the slide appears to have a low and infrequent rate of slide activity. The potential risk to a small, short span trail bridge at this location appears to be low. Debris flows: The proposed bridge site is located at the mouth of a narrow and steep sided drainage that is subject to debris flows. As previously discussed a debris flow deposit (debris fan) extends out from the mouth of the ravine and onto the flat valley bottom. The tributary stream is incised 4 to 5 feet into these deposits. The age of this deposit is unknown, but based on site geomorphology and the age vegetation established on the debris fan, the site may have experienced a debris flow or other depositional event within the past 20 to 50 years. The location of the Bridge 1 at the mouth of the ravine places the bridge at risk from impact from future upslope debris flows. The debris flow hazard can be minimized by elevating the bottom of the bridge above the top of the debris slide mass to allow passage of all but the largest debris flow to pass beneath. Though large debris flows capable of damaging or destroying the bridge will be possible in the future, the geologic risk to bridge users will be low due to the low frequency and short duration use of the trail bridge, which limits bridge user’s exposure to the geologic hazards. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report will mitigate this risk to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. Flooding: Waterways Consulting undertook a hydraulic analysis of stream flow to estimate the 100‐year flood elevation at the proposed upstream Bridge 1 site. The modeling results indicate the 100‐year flood is contained within the channel banks. The depth of flow was calculated at 1.6 feet. Based on the foregoing the proposed Bridge 1 is not subject to flooding provided the channel is not aggraded by sediment from debris flows. We recommend the bottom of the bridge be elevated above the top of the existing ground surface that is composed of the debris slide mass. Stream Bank Erosion and Instability: A qualitative slope stability analysis was undertaken to evaluate stream bank erosion and slope stability hazards at the proposed upstream bridge site. This analysis is based on field observations of site geomorphology and earth materials exposed in the channel bank and shallow test pits, and from measurements of site topography. 229 Page |21 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG The tributary stream is incised 4 to 5 feet into old landslide debris resulting in steep channel banks. Stream bank erosion and sloughing of the channel bank is intermittently active along both sides of the channel. We recommend that the bottom of bridge abutment footing be offset a minimum of 3 feet from a 1.5H:1V line projected from the bottom of the channel bank. In order to minimize the environmental impact of trail structure, hardscape to stabilize the stream bank is not recommended. Log Jams: While they are not strictly speaking a geologic hazard, log and debris jams are a natural phenomenon in narrow streams in mountainous terrain, and have the potential to increase flooding and/or debris flow hazards. Future log jams could develop anywhere along the stream during large discharge events and could potentially impact the bridge site either directly or indirectly by diverting stream flow. Though the potential for a future log jam to develop at the site is difficult to quantify, based on field observation the risk to the bridge site appears low. Recommendations: We recommend a minimum 35‐foot long trail bridge incorporating concrete abutments be installed at the upper crossing (upstream end of the debris fan) as shown on Figure 5. BRIDGE 2: CONGRESS SPRINGS CREEK Site Conditions Bridge 2 is a proposed 70 foot long trail bridge to span Congress Springs Creek. At this location Congress Springs Creek occupies a narrow alluvial filled valley bottom draining a 196 acre forested watershed confined by steep canyon walls (Figure 54). The watercourse is entrenched 6 to 8+ feet through the old fluvial terrace deposits resulting in locally steep channel banks with some areas of erosion. Gently sloping fluvial terraces occupy both sides of the valley. Photo 3: Looking upstream at Bridge 2 Photo 4: Looking downstream at Bridge 2 where stream flow is directed into the channel bank near the north abutment. 230 !!@A @A (N) 70 - FT TRAIL BRIDGE (N) MULTI-USE TRAIL Cong r e s s S p rin g sC reekQoal fs Qoal Qal Old t r a c t o r r o a d Qlsm(Deep-seated landslide mass) Bedrock SlopeBreak(N) MULTI-USE TRAIL 920910 930 920 930 900 B6 B7 à Qoal Qal Bridge 2CongressSpringsCreek C ongressS p r i ngsCr eekQlsm 130012001350 125011507501100120013 0 0 12501050 12001 2 5 0 120 0 80 0 1200850 900 950 1 0 5 0 1000 115 0 110 0 LEGEND:Date:5/15/2019Revised: Project: SAR-SAR2SAN-767FIGURE5SARATOGA-TO-SANBORNTRAIL PROJECTSITE MAP / CROSS SECTION - BRIDGE 2TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEGENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)????????????????????????????????????????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!Qal fs Qoal 100-yr Flood Elevation (N) 70-ft TRAIL BRIDGE BOTTOM OF BRIDGE6 FT MIN ABOVE CHANNEL (N) BRIDGE ABUTMENT(SCHEMATIC) 890' 920' 915' 910' 905' 900' 895' 0 10 20Feet ´ Note: Contour lines based on topographicsurvey. Proposed Trail Proposed Bridge Top of Channel Bank Slope Break Geologic contact dashed where approximate querried where uncertain Stream Tree Suvey Control Point Qal: Alluvial Qc: Colluvium Qoal: Old Alluvium Qlsm: Deep-seated Landslide Mass fs Franciscan Sandstone #0 LOCATION MAP SITE MAP CROSS SECTION 0 5 10Feet à 0 100 200Feet ´ Proposed Trail Proposed Bridge Intermittent Stream Existing Fire Road Existing Dirt Road Existing Tractor Trail Alluvial Sediments Deep Seated Landslide 231 Page |23 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG The active stream channel is about 30 feet wide and is gravel, cobble and boulder bedded. The average channel gradient is 6%. Runoff is seasonal with summer low flows going subsurface. Peak stream flows are contained entirely within the entrenched channel. The flashy nature of site hydrology and unstable nature of the watershed can lead to channel erosion and incision, as well as the development of flood events that can carry significant quantities of sediment, treefall, and related debris through the creek corridor. Outside the valley bottom the side slopes are locally steep, with slope gradients ranging between 50% to greater than 75% slope and subject to shallow landslide processes. The south side of the valley is also underlain by a 3+ acre deep‐seated landslide complex that is interpreted to be periodically active. Subsurface Conditions Terrace deposits consist of older alluvial sediment consisting of unconsolidated sandy gravel and cobbles with small boulders. These deposits tend to be moderately well‐graded with thin lenses of sand and pebbles. The soils appear to be medium dense. Hard Franciscan sandstone and siltstone is exposed along the north bank of the channel upstream of the crossing. The rock appears locally sheared and fractured but generally resistant to erosion. Haro, Kasunich and Associates drilled two hand auger borings to evaluate soil conditions at the bridge abutments (See Appendix A). Results of the geotechnical subsurface investigation of the site indicates the bearing material consists of mostly gravel and sand with trace silt and clay fractions. This description is consistent with the soil profile in the nearby exposed creek banks. The relative density of the soil increased at a depth of a 0.5 to 1.0 foot below existing grade from loose to medium dense to dense. The relative density was estimated by applying full body weight to a ½ inch diameter smooth steel rod at various depths within borings B‐7 and B‐6 drilled adjacent the proposed bridge abutments. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the native soils 1.5 feet below existing grade, will provided adequate bearing support for the proposed bridge abutments at the Bridge 2 site. Geologic Hazards Faulting, Seismic Shaking: There are no mapped faults transecting the bridge site, thus the potential risk of fault rupture appears low. The subject site is subject to high ground accelerations during a large earthquake on the San Andreas Fault or other nearby faults. Please refer to REGIONAL FAULTS AND SEISMICITY (page 6) for a more in depth discussion. Liquefaction: Regional Liquefaction Maps (Witter et al., 2006) do not depict Quaternary age deposits at the project site and report the liquefaction hazard to be low. Based on field observations there appears to be a low potential for liquefaction within the near surface soils. Landsliding: Deep‐seated landsliding: Review of LiDAR bare earth imagery and field reconnaissance finds the slope on the south of the bridge to be underlain by a large 3 acre deep‐seated translational landslide complex. 232 Page |24 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG This slide is characterized by steep (65% to 80%) and slightly benched ground. The slide appears to toe out within Congress Springs Creek. Presently Congress Springs Creek is backfilled with alluvial sediment which would act to partially buttress the slope, though to what extent is unknown. The majority of the slide is characterized by generally weathered and subdued ground without evidence of recent or active movement and corresponding to the "dormant‐young" morphological age classification of Keaton and DeGraff (1996). A few scattered trees on steeper sideslopes are slightly pistol‐butted or have broad sweeps, which is most likely due to shallow soil creep rather than global instability. Though the majority of this slide appears dormant, a couple portions of this slide have experience relatively recent small scale instability. The first area is a roughly ¼ acre area of relatively recent instability observed in the upper portion of the hillside about 150 to 300 feet upslope of the bridge site. This area is characterized by a small midslope bench with a couple of slightly leaning conifers and a small lobate toe that bulges out onto the steep slope below. Based on field observations, this feature appears to be an area of shallow secondary instability. Based on the age of the trees we interpret the instability to have occurred 30 to 50 years ago. We did not observe clear evidence of recent slide activity, such as fresh cracks following the 2017 and 2019 storms. The second area is a roughly ¼ acre secondary translational slide block located about 100 feet downstream of the bridge site in an area where Congress Springs Creek has directly undercut the hillside. In this area the slide block has down dropped resulting in a couple of conifer trees on the slide mass to tilt. This secondary slide does not present a direct hazard to the bridge. Based on field observations of slide morphology, we interpreted the slide to be periodically active and subject to reactivation in event of a large seismic event or prolonged rainfall. Based on our experience, most slides of this type tend to move incrementally resulting in localized small scale ground displacements on the order of a few inches to several feet. Movement at the toe is generally taken up by compressional strain. Incipient slide movement, however, can contribute to secondary shallow debris slides. Quantifying hillslope stability would require a detailed geotechnical investigation incorporating subsurface exploration (which would be difficult if not impossible to undertake due to the remote nature of the site and lack of access for drill rigs), laboratory testing, slope stability modeling and Newmark analysis; all of which is outside the scope of this study. The location of the proposed Bridge 2 near the toe of a potentially active deep‐seated landslide places the bridge at potential risk if and when the slide reactivates. Whether a bridge would suffer structural damage at the project site resulting from slide activity cannot be determined with certainty. This is dependent upon how much, if any, slope displacement occurs at the bridge site. In our opinion, the most likely scenario is that little to no significant displacement would occur at the south bridge abutment within the design life of the bridge. Nonetheless, moving forward with bridge design will have to be done with the understanding that continued movement of the site is possible and cannot be avoided in a practical manner. Therefore the proposed crossing must be designed to account for future slide movement and/or be constructed in a manner that minimizes injury to users to the extent practicable. 233 Page |25 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG We recommend that Bridge 2 be constructed as shown on Figure 5 and, if feasible, designed for the bridge deck to “float” on top of the footings to accommodate a few inches of horizontal displacement. Though the exact amount of potential future displacement (if any) is unknown, we believe it is economically prudent to design for a small amount of displacement to the extent that it is feasible to do so. In the event the slide experiences small scale creep or compressional strain, this may minimize the amount of damage to the structure. During the life of the bridge, the abutments will need to be periodically inspected, particularly following seismic events and periods of heavy rainfall. Shallow landsliding: The south facing slopes of Congress Springs Creek are characterized by steep 50% to 75+% gradient planar slopes with evidence of a few scattered old debris slide scars. As discussed above, we observe a roughly ¼ acre area of recent instability 150 to 300 feet upslope of the bridge. This area is characterized by slightly broken ground, a couple of leaning conifers, and a small lobate toe. This may represent incipient movement of a shallow debris slide. In our opinion, there is a moderate potential for future small shallow debris slides to occur on the steep slopes above the bridge in the event of a large magnitude storm or seismic event. Such failures would most likely be shallow and extend only a short distance downslope. Because of the expected small size and infrequent occurrence of the failures and because the bridge will be offset from the base of the slope, the risk to the bridge will most likely be small. Small scale rock falls were observed on the north side of the bridge. These do not appear to present a significant hazard to the bridge. Flooding: Waterways Consulting undertook a hydraulic analysis of stream flow to estimate the 100‐year flood elevation at the proposed bridge site. Their modeling effort indicates the 100‐year flood is contained within the channel banks with the depth of flow calculated at less than 3 feet. This is somewhat lower than what we would expect given site conditions. This leads us to believe that because of high sediment load of the stream, channel bed elevation may change overtime in response to depositional and erosional events. For this reason we recommend that the bottom of the bridge be located a minimum of 6 feet above the active stream channel to allow for channel aggradation and passage of debris. Stream Bank Erosion and Instability: The north bridge abutment is located at the upstream end of a fluvial terrace and at the outside of a bend in the stream (see Photo 3). Upstream of this location the stream flows along the north side of the valley wall exposing Franciscan bedrock in the channel bank. At the upstream end of the terrace the stream makes a bend to the left resulting in a 7‐foot high steep channel bank that exposes coarse alluvial sands, gravels and cobbles. Because stream flow is directed into the bank at this location, the alluvial sediments that comprise the channel bank are subject to erosion. To minimize the potential for stream bank erosion to undermine the bridge footings, we recommend Bridge 2 abutments be offset a minimum of 15 feet back from the top of the channel bank. This will place the bridge abutment at, or just past, the inside edge of the terrace. This is close to expected contact between the alluvial sediments that comprise the terrace and Franciscan bedrock that underlies the terrace deposits and forms the slope above. The goal is to embed the abutment into stable bedrock that will be resistant to stream erosion or be far enough back so that it is unlikely to be undermined by 234 Page |26 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG stream bank erosion. The south side of the bridge abutment is located well away from the active channel and is not at risk for being undermined by stream bank erosion. Log Jams: While they are not strictly speaking a geologic hazard, log jams are a natural phenomenon in narrow streams in mountainous terrain, and have the potential to increase flooding and/or debris flow hazards. Future log jams could develop anywhere along the stream during large discharge events and could potentially impact the bridge site either directly or indirectly by diverting stream flow. Though the potential for a future log jam to develop at the site is difficult to quantify, based on field observation the risk to the bridge 2 site appears low. Recommendations: We recommend a minimum 70 foot long trail bridge be installed on Congress Springs Creek as shown on Figure 5. We anticipate a prefabricated metal or fiberglass truss bridge will be the most cost effective bridge structure to construct at the site. A fiberglass bridge can be delivered to the site in pieces via the trail and then assembled onsite. A helicopter can also deliver materials to the site and this may be much more cost effective. A possible drop zone is located on the terrace surface on the downstream side of the bridge crossing. Placement of the bridge will require removing the 18 inch diameter bay tree located on the north channel bank and which is partially undermined by stream bank erosion. This tree needs to be removed to allow the bridge to be located in a more suitable location and to avoid the potential hazard that this tree were to have on the bridge if it were to fall. BRIDGE 3: TRIBUTARY Site Conditions Bridge 3 is located where the proposed trail crosses a narrow and locally steep sided deep intermittent watercourse draining a 39 acre forested watershed (Figure 6). There are at least two locations approximately 150 feet apart along this segment of stream that are suitable for a trail bridge. The downstream site is located on a more entrenched segment of the stream and would require a 50 foot long bridge, but has a more direct approach and better aesthetics. The upstream site is located where the stream is less entrenched thereby requiring a shorter span bridge, but will require an additional switchback and likely result in higher impacts to the riparian zone. The downstream site is the preferred location and is the only site discussed here. The proposed bridge site is located where the ravine is entrenched 15 feet deep with steep sidewalls inclined at 60% to 100% gradient. Slope gradients above the ravine are moderate, ranging between 10% to 30%. Shallow stream bank erosion and instability was observed in localized areas along the channel bottom. The active stream channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide, sand and gravel bedded, and has a channel gradient of 6%. There is equivocal evidence to suggest the site is underlain by a large scale deep‐seated landslide. 235 Page |27 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG Photo 4: Looking across at Bridge 3 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface profile consists of colluvium overlying Franciscan bedrock. Colluvial soils exposed in the ravine sidewalls consist of medium dense clayey sand to silty sand with scattered clasts of sandstone. Bedrock was not exposed. Haro, Kasunich and Associates drilled two hand auger borings to evaluate soil conditions at the bridge abutments (See Appendix A). Sieve analysis was performed on a soil sample taken at a depth of 2 feet below existing grade. Results of the sieve analysis indicate the bearing material consists of 17.6 % gravel, 31.5% sand, and 50.9 % clay and silt fractions. The relative density of the soil increased at a depth of 2.5 feet below existing grade from very loose to medium dense to dense. The relative density was estimated by applying full body weight to a ½ inch diameter smooth steel rod at various depths within borings B‐1 and B‐2 drilled adjacent the proposed bridge abutments. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the native soils 1.5 feet below existing grade, will provide adequate bearing support for the proposed bridge abutments at the Bridge 3 site. 236 @A @A @A 1510150014901480148014701 4 7 0 14901460 B2 B1 HT1 à à Qlsm Bridge 3 San Jose Water Company property line1500 1100 1150 1750 15001150 17001750 1450140012001200 1 7 0 0 14001250 145016 5 013001500 160 0 1350 1550 à LEGEND: ??????????? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????????????????! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JJ Qlsm Qc (N) 50-FT TRAIL BRIDGE Qlsm 1470' 1500' 1495' 1490' 1485' 1480' 1475' 45' 0 10 20Feet ´ 0 150 300Feet ´ Note: Contour lines based on topographicsurvey and LIDAR bare earth data. Proposed Trail Proposed Bridge Intermittent Stream Existing Fire Road Existing Dirt Road Existing Tractor Trail Alluvial Sediments Deep Seated Landslide Proposed Trail Proposed Bridge Top of Channel Bank Slope Break Geologic contact dashed where approximate Stream Tree Suvey Control Point Limit of Topographic Survey Qc/Qal: Colluvial/Alluvial Deposits Qdf: Debris Fan Deposits Qlsm: Landslide Mass #0 LOCATION MAP SITE MAP CROSS SECTION 0 5 10Feet Date:5/15/2019Revised: Project: SAR-SAR2SAN-767FIGURE6SARATOGA-TO-SANBORNTRAIL PROJECTSITE MAP / CROSS SECTION - BRIDGE 3TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEGENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)237 Page |29 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG Geologic Hazards Faulting, Seismic Shaking and Liquefaction: There are no mapped faults transecting the bridge site thus the potential risk of fault rupture appears low. The site is subject to high ground accelerations during a large earthquake on the San Andreas Fault or other nearby faults. . Please refer to REGIONAL FAULTS AND SEISMICITY (page 6) for a more in depth discussion. Regional Liquefaction Maps (Witter et al., 2006) do not depict Quaternary age deposits at the project site and report the liquefaction hazard to be low. Our field observations of the soils and groundwater conditions also find the liquefaction hazard at the site to be low. Landsliding: Review of LiDAR bare earth imagery and field reconnaissance finds the Bridge 3 site to be underlain by a 4+ acre deep‐seated landslide. We did not observe any clear evidence of recent activity, such as fresh cracks or leaning trees on the portions of this slide near the bridge site following the 2017 storms. Based on the foregoing the slide appears to have a low and infrequent rate of slide activity. The potential risk to a small, short span trail bridge at this location from landsliding appears to be low. Flooding: The proposed bridge is located over 8 feet above the active stream channel and well outside of any areas subject to flooding. The potential hazard from flooding is low. Stream Bank Erosion and Instability: Both stream banks are subject to shallow bank erosion on the order of 1 to 2 feet. The potential impact of stream bank erosion and instability can be mitigated to a level consistent with the standard of care for siting infrequently used recreational trail bridges in remote areas by offsetting the bottom of bridge footings. We recommend Bridge 3 incorporate concrete abutments that are be embedded a minimum 3 feet into firm native soils with the bottom of both abutments to be offset 2 horizontal feet from a hypothetical 1.5H:1V line projected upward from the current edge of the channel bottom. This level of embedment and offset appears appropriate for the site conditions and feasible relative to trail bridge constructability. Recommendations: There are no significant geologic hazards that would preclude Bridge 3 construction. We recommend a minimum 50 foot long trail bridge with concrete abutments be installed on as shown on Figure 5. 238 Page |30 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG BRIDGE 4: TRIBUTARY Site Conditions Bridge 4 is located near the head of a very small ephemeral stream that originates less than 100 feet upslope. The site is located within a broad topographic bowl with slope gradients averaging about 45%. The stream channel is incises about 1 foot dee and 2 feet wide. Photo 4: Looking upstream at Bridge 4 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface profile consists of gravely colluvium overlying Franciscan bedrock. Bedrock was not exposed but expected to be found at a shallow depth. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the native soils will provide adequate bearing support for the proposed bridge abutments. Geologic Hazards Faulting, Seismic Shaking and Liquefaction: There are no mapped faults transecting the bridge site thus the potential risk of fault rupture appears low. The site is subject to high ground accelerations during a large earthquake on the San Andreas Fault or other nearby faults. The Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) on Site Class B soils (rock) at the subject site is reported by the USGS (2017) is reported to be 1.02 g. Please refer to REGIONAL FAULTS AND SEISMICITY (page 6). Regional Liquefaction Maps (Witter et al., 2006) do not depict Quaternary age deposits at the project site and report the liquefaction hazard to be low. Our field observations of the soils and groundwater conditions also find the liquefaction hazard at the site to be low. 239 Page |31 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG Landsliding: We did not observe any landslides at the bridge site and the risk of landsliding is found to be low. Flooding: The watercourse receives very little runoff with the runoff that does occur being very infrequent. The potential hazard from flooding is low. Stream Bank Erosion and Instability: No significant stream bank erosion was observed. The risk of stream bank erosion impacting the bridge is low. Recommendations: There are no significant geologic hazards that would preclude Bridge 4 construction. We recommend a minimum 2 foot long trail bridge be installed. SUMMARY of GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND CONSTRAINTS STEEP UNSTABLE SIDESLOPES The project area is characterized by moderate to steep slopes and subject to infrequent shallow landslide processes. Field review finds that some slopes exceeding 70% gradient have a moderate to high potential for debris flows and debris slides. The proposed trail has been located avoid steep unstable slopes to the extent feasible. However, roughly 1,000 feet of new trail will need to cross steep ground greater than 65% to 70% gradient with some areas having a moderate potential for shallow landsliding. In these areas the proposed trail may be subject to infrequent natural debris slides and debris flows requiring periodic maintenance to clear debris and/or repair the trail tread or in worst‐case scenario to reconstruct the trail tread. Such failures are not expected to present a significant hazard to users of the trail using common sense, and in most instances can be repaired with standard trail maintenance. This risk is similar to that on other nearby recreational trails that cross similarly steep slopes. To minimize the risk of trail related instability, the trail should be constructed across slopes steeper than 50% gradient on a cut bench (minimal fill) and on slopes steer than 65% constructed a maximum 4 foot width. Low retaining structures may be required to support the outside edge of trail as site conditions dictate. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report and in the plans will mitigate this risk to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. Where the trail is built across steep landslide prone areas, the trail may only be temporary, and may need to be rebuilt after slippage of the slide. Therefore, the City should plan for regular maintenance and reconstruction costs. 240 Page |32 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG DEEP-SEATED LANDSLIDING The project area is underlain by several large‐scale deep‐seated translational landslides and earthflows. The landslides in the project area demonstrate varying levels of activity. Though most appear dormant, several appeared to have experienced small scale slope displacements within the past 50 to 100 years. Based on our field observations of slide morphology, we interpret the slides to be potentially active with future slope displacements possible in the event of a large magnitude earthquake or large storms. Portions of the trail will need to be routed across several potentially active deep‐seated landslides and therefore the trail is inherently at risk of being damaged by future deep‐seated slide movement. Future slide movement would most likely result in small scale ground displacement on the order of a few inches to several feet that could offset portions of the trail requiring the trail to be repaired. The proposed trail will not have any measurable impact on the stability of the larger landslides due to the expected small cuts and fills and because the mass balance and hydrology of the slides will not be significantly altered. Because of the large size and depth of the landslides it will not be possible to stabilize the slide mass. Therefore, the proposed trail must be designed to either accommodate future slide movement or be constructed in a manner that any damage to the trail would unlikely result in significant harm to the users or increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation. This can be achieved by avoiding the more active portions of the slide complex and where such slopes cannot be avoided routing the trail on the more gently sloping terrain. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report and in the plans will mitigate the risk from deep‐seated landsliding to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. TRAIL EROSION Soils along the trail do not appear to be highly susceptible to erosion. The proposed trail has been laid out to avoid areas of significant erosion potential, minimize the number of watercourse crossings, avoid fall‐line orientation and have less than 15% grade. It is also recommended to incorporate frequent cross drains (e.g. rolling dips, reverse grades, nicks) along the trail. For these reasons, significant trail related erosion and adverse impacts to water quality are not expected, provided the trail is adequately maintained. GROUNDWATER The nature, lithology and estimated permeability of the soils at the site result in the potential for seasonal perched groundwater conditions and saturation from infiltrating rainfall and resultant storm runoff. Where seasonal perched groundwater is encountered the trail tread may become seasonally wet and require maintenance. WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS Watercourses present a significant constraint to new trail construction. Congress Springs Creek 241 Page |33 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG and most of its larger tributaries are deeply incised into the landscape resulting in narrow steep sided ravines with locally unstable slopes. Most of the watercourses are found to have toe slopes that are too steep (> 75% gradient) to allow for stable watercourse crossings. The proposed trail will need to cross Congress Springs Creek and three smaller tributaries utilizing the few stable crossing locations that do exist. The project proposes to span all four watercourses to allow users to cross the streams without entering or disturbing the banks of the streams. A more in depth engineering geologic and geotechnical investigation of the proposed bridge crossings is presented in a separate report. The following is a summary of the conclusion and recommendations from that report. BRIDGE 1: o Located at the mouth of a narrow and steep sided ravine subject to debris flows. o The crossing site is subject to several geologic hazards with the most significant hazard from potential from upslope debris flows extending down the ravine to impact the bridge structure. The debris flow hazard can be minimized, but not entirely prevented, by elevating the bottom of the bridge above the top of the existing debris slide mass to allow passage of all but the largest potential future debris flow to past beneath. Though large debris flows capable of damaging or destroying the bridge are possible, the geologic risk to bridge users will be low due to the low frequency and short duration use of the trail bridge, which limits bridge user’s exposure to the geologic hazards. o The project proposes a 35 foot long by 6 foot wide steel stringer bridge with wood deck and railing and concrete abutments. It will be constructed in place. BRIDGE 2: o Located on Congress Springs Creek, which occupies a narrow alluvial‐filled valley with the watercourse entrenched 6 to 8+ feet through the old fluvial terrace deposits. o We observed a large deep‐seated landslide complex underlying the steep slopes to the south of the bridge site. We interpret this slide to be periodically active and subject to infrequent localized small scale slope displacements in the event of a large magnitude earthquake or storm event. Whether a bridge would suffer structural damage from future slide activity cannot be determined with certainty, but in our opinion, the most likely scenario is that little to no significant displacement would occur at the south bridge abutment within the design life of the bridge. Nonetheless, moving forward with bridge design will have to be done with the understanding that continued movement of the site is possible and cannot be avoided in a practical manner. To minimize the landslide risk at this location we recommend that at least one of the bridge abutments be engineered for the bridge deck to “float” on top of the footings and accommodate a minimum of 6 inches of horizontal displacement. o The steep slopes to the south of the bridge are also subject to infrequent shallow debris slide processes. In our opinion, there is a moderate potential for future small shallow debris slides to occur on the steep slopes above the bridge in the event of a large magnitude storm or seismic event. Such failures would most likely be shallow and extend only a short distance downslope. Because of the expected small size and infrequent occurrence of the failures and 242 Page |34 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG because the bridge will be offset from the base of the slope, the risk to the bridge will most likely be small. o The north bridge abutment is located at the outside of a bend in the stream and therefore subject to stream bank erosion. To mitigate the potential for stream bank erosion to undermine this bridge footing at this location, we recommend the bridge abutment be offset a minimum of 15 feet back from the top of the channel bank and bottom of the footing founded into firm bedrock. o The project proposes a 70 foot long by 6 feet wide prefabricated steel or fiberglass truss and concrete abutments BRIDGE 3: o This bridge will be located where the proposed trail crosses a narrow and locally steep sided deep ravine drained by an intermittent watercourse. There are no significant geologic hazards that would preclude trail bridge construction o The project proposes a 50 foot long by 6 foot wide steel stringer bridge with wood deck and railing and concrete abutments. It will be constructed in place. BRIDGE 4 o This bridge will be located where the proposed trail crosses a very small ephemeral watercourse. There are no significant geologic hazards that would preclude trail bridge construction o The project proposes a 20 foot long by 6 foot wide glulam or steel stringer bridge with wood deck and railing and concrete abutments. It will be constructed in place. SEISMIC SHAKING The project site is in a seismically active area and is very close to the San Andreas Fault Zone; a major potential source of severe seismic shaking. Severe damage is likely in the event of a major earthquake on a nearby segment of the San Andreas Fault. The possibility of seismically induced landsliding and potential liquefaction exists. Trail and bridge repairs will be necessary in the event of a severe earthquake. SWITCHBACKS As currently proposed, the trail will require 18 switchbacks or climbing turns. A minimum 9‐foot centerline turning radius is recommended. The majority of proposed switchbacks are located on moderate 35% to 45% gradient stable slopes. Two switchbacks are proposed on relatively steep 50% to 65% gradient slopes (Sites SB3, and SB13). Because of the steep slopes, construction of these switchbacks may prove to be difficult resulting in larger cuts and fills. To minimize the amount of grading and mitigate the potential impact that construction may have on slope stability we recommend that switchbacks located on slopes steeper than 60% be constructed with a centerline radius of 7 feet with the downslope leg of the trail supported on a 4.5 foot high retaining wall or rock buttress. Because of 243 Page |35 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG the relatively tight turn the trail the switchback may be subject to erosion. To minimize this erosion risk the trail design should incorporate an uphill grade break leading to the switchback to slow cyclists through the turn. CONCLUSIONS This report presents the findings of our engineering geologic and geotechnical investigation of the proposed Saratoga ‐ Sanborn Trail. Our investigation finds the proposed trail to be located in a geologically active and potentially unstable area, and as such, is inherently subject to several potentially significant geologic hazards. These hazards are discussed in detail in the text of this report. The geologic hazards present at the site could, in a worst case scenario, subject the trail and trail elements to structural damage or ground failure. Although the proposed trail project is located in an area of potential significant geologic hazards and damage to the trail or trail structures may occur during adverse geologic events (e.g. intense storms and high ground accelerations during earthquakes), the risk to users from the geologic hazards is expected to be low due to the short duration and low frequency of trail use. Therefore the users of the trail and trail bridges, if exercising reasonable common sense, are not expected to be subject to risks from naturally occurring geologic hazards beyond a reasonable level of risk consistent with recreational trail use. The trail and trail structures will require routine inspection, maintenance and repair as needed to abate the risks from geologic hazards. We therefore are of the opinion that the proposed project is acceptable from a geologic and erosional standpoint if all recommendations outlined in this report are properly implemented and maintained. Incorporating the recommendations outlined in this report and in the plans will mitigate this risk to a level of less than significant for recreational trail use while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. 244 Page |36 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for constructing a sustainable trail along the identified alignment are provided below. TRAIL DESIGN 1. The proposed trail and trail bridges shall be constructed along the mapped alignment represented in the accompanying plan documents and as identified in the field. 2. The new trail segments shall be laid out to conform to natural terrain to create an aesthetically pleasing alignment. The alignment should avoid long straight reaches. The alignment should incorporate natural terrain features to form required reverse grades to the extent feasible. 3. The trail shall be constructed at a maximum 8 to 15% sustained grade. Short segments greater than 15% gradient may be allowed. 4. Trail construction a. On slopes < 50% the trail shall be less than 5‐feet wide and constructed on a partial bench (balanced cut and fill); b. On slopes > 50 and < 65% % the trail shall be less 5‐feet wide and constructed on a cut bench (minimal fill); c. On slopes > 65% % the trail shall be less than 4‐feet wide and constructed on a cut bench (minimal fill); d. On select slopes greater than 65% the trail tread may need to be supported on low retaining wall as site conditions dictate. 5. Areas to receive structural or broadcast fill shall be stripped to remove all vegetation, roots, brush, highly organic soils and other unsuitable fill material (~ 4” depth). Structural fill placed greater than 6 inches deep shall be compacted to minimum 85 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D 1557). During placement and compaction of fill, the moisture content of the materials being placed shall be maintained as necessary. Structural fill shall be placed no steeper than 1.5H:1V (unless otherwise specified or directed). 6. The on‐site soil may be used as compacted fill once it is processed. Processing should include moisture conditioning and removing cobbles and boulders greater than 3 inches in diameter and organic material. The material used for fill shall be approved by a representative of Timothy C. Best in the field during grading operations. 7. Temporary cuts within the alluvial deposits may be made at 1:1 gradient to a height of 5 feet. 8. All deleterious spoils from site excavation not used as structural fill shall be spread onsite per plans as directed by Engineer. 9. Cuts shall be inclined 0.5H:1V in competent bedrock and 0.75H:1V in colluvial soils unless otherwise specified on plans. 10. The trail should be out‐sloped about 5 to 8 percent. Every year or two, maintenance may be needed to return and “de‐berm” sections of trail where soil compaction and displacement have exceeded 245 Page |37 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG the outsloping. 11. The trail shall incorporate frequent reverse grade dips at roughly 100 to 150 foot spacings. 12. Incorporate climbing turns at switchbacks to the extent feasible. 13. The City should recognize that a trail built across steep landslide prone areas may only be temporary, and may need to be rebuilt after slippage of a slide. The City should plan appropriately for maintenance and reconstruction costs. 14. All bridges should have clear span over streams. Bridge abutments shall be located outside the 100‐ year flood elevation. 15. We recommend a licensed structural engineer provide design criteria for the bridge and abutment structures. We require that we review the civil engineers plans prior to them being finalized so that we may provide comments. 16. All trails should be designed in accordance with the Countywide Trails Master Plan Design and Management Guidelines. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 1. During project construction, the contractor shall be responsible for implementing appropriate and necessary drainage and erosion control measures to minimize storm water runoff from the construction site, pursuant to applicable regulations and permits. 2. The following strategies to ensure that storm water pollution is prevented shall be employed: a. Limit the extent of trail under construction at any given time b. Install temporary silt fences as prescribed on plans c. Install permanent erosion control measures as trail construction progresses. Permanent erosion control measures include: d. Install frequent reverse grade dips at roughly 100 to 150 foot spacings. e. Exposed mineral soils outside of the trail running surface greater than 50 square feet (sf) and with exposed slope distance exceeding 10 feet and with less than 80% ground coverage of natural vegetation shall be mulched in order to reduce the potential for short‐term sheet and rill erosion. Mulch using native duff and slash. 3. Winter construction a. Any grading for the project after October 1 shall be completed in dry weather or low rainfall (less than ½ inch per 24 hour period). b. A minimum of 200 linear feet of straw wattle and erosion control blankets shall be available at staging area or on site at all times. c. In the event of 25 percent chance of forecast inclement weather (greater than ½ inch of rainfall in 24 hour period), temporary erosion control measures (e.g. straw wattles, silt fence, erosion control blankets, etc) shall be installed to protect the section of trail that is currently under construction. 246 Page |38 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG BRIDGE DESIGN BRIDGE 1 1. We recommend a minimum 35‐foot long trail bridge be installed as shown on Figure 5. 2. The bottom of the proposed bridge should be elevated above the debris fan surface. 3. The bottom of bridge abutment footing a minimum of 3 feet from a 1.5H:1V line projected from the bottom of the channel bank. 4. A structural engineer shall provide design criteria for the proposed bridge structure. 5. In our opinion, bridge materials can be delivered to the site via the proposed trail once it is constructed. BRIDGE 2 1. We recommend a minimum 70‐foot long trail bridge be installed as shown on Figure 5. We anticipate a prefabricated metal or fiberglass truss bridge will be the most cost effective bridge structure to construct at the site. 2. The north bank bridge abutment should be offset a minimum of 15 feet back from the top of the channel bank and founded in firm bedrock or a minimum of 4 feet below existing grade. The south bridge abutment may incorporate broad spread footing 3. To the extent feasible we recommend that Bridge 2 be designed for the bridge deck to “float” on top of the footings to accommodate a few inches of horizontal displacement. 4. The bottom of the bridge shall be located a minimum of 6 feet above the active stream channel. 5. A structural engineer shall provide design criteria for the proposed bridge structure. 6. A fiberglass bridge can be delivered to the site in pieces via the trail and then assembled onsite. A helicopter can also deliver materials to the site and this may be much more cost effective. A possible drop zone is located on the terrace surface on the downstream side of the bridge crossing. BRIDGE 3 1. We recommend a minimum 50‐foot long trail bridge be installed as shown on Figure 5. 2. The bottom of bridge abutment footing are be embedded a minimum 3 feet into firm native soils with the bottom of both abutments to be offset 2 horizontal feet from a hypothetical 1.5H:1V line projected upward from the current edge of the channel bottom. 3. A structural engineer shall provide design criteria for the proposed bridge structure. 4. In our opinion, bridge materials can be delivered to the site via the proposed trail once it is constructed. BRIDGE 5 1. We recommend a minimum 20‐foot long trail bridge be installed with abutments founded into firm native soils. 2. A structural engineer shall provide design criteria for the proposed bridge structure. 247 Page |39 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND LATERAL PRESSURES 1. Based on our investigation, we recommend new bridge foundation abutments be supported on native older alluvial or colluvial soils at the site with the bottom of the excavations compacted with backhoe bucket. 2. The abutments should be embedded a minimum of 3 feet below grade. 3. Bridge abutments may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf for dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by one‐third to include short‐term seismic and wind loads. 4. For passive lateral resistance, 250 pcf, equivalent fluid weight acting against the abutment is appropriate. The top 2 feet of soil should be neglected. 5. Abutments should be designed to resist a combined active earth and hydrostatic pressure of 81 pcf, equivalent fluid weight. This assumes an undrained condition. 6. If an earthquake load is to be applied, apply a seismic surcharge equivalent to 19 H psf per foot of wall height. 7. The bottoms of all abutments should have a minimum 10 foot horizontal separation from the adjacent creek bank slope surface. 8. Abutments should be vertically reinforced their full length. The vertical reinforcement should be lapped and tied each way to the upper concrete abutment. Actual reinforcement requirements should be determined by the structural engineer. 9. Prior to placing concrete, all abutment excavations should be thoroughly cleaned. The abutment excavations must be observed by the soil engineer or his representative prior to placing concrete. If unusual or unforeseen soil conditions are found during construction, additional recommendations may be required. OTHER 1. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are preliminary and contingent upon our review of the final plans. We require the opportunity to review plans and details prior to final design and completion. 2. The recommendations presented in this report require our observation and testing of the earthwork and foundation excavations. This allows us to confirm anticipated soil conditions and to provide supplemental recommendations as site conditions warrant. If we do not review the plans and provide observation services during the earthwork phase of the project, we assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the recommendations in this report. 248 Page |40 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG REFERENCES Atwater, T., 1970, Implications of Plate Tectonics for the Cenozoic Tectonic Evolution of Western North America: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, no. 12, p. 3513‐3536. Brabb, E. E., Graymer, R. W., and Jones, D. L., 2000, Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30' x 60' quadrangle, California: U. S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies MF‐2332, scale 1:24,000. Bryant, W. A., 2000, Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website: http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults. Graham, S. A., and Dickinson, W. R., Apparent offset of on‐land geologic features across the San Gregorio‐Hosgri fault trend, in Proceedings San Gregorio‐Hosgri fault zone, California1978, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 137, p 13‐23. Keaton, J. R., and DeGraff, J. V., 1996, Surface Observations and Geologic Mapping, in Turner, A. K., and Schuster, R., eds., Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation: Transportation Research Board, Special Report 247: Washington D.C., National Academy Press, p. 178‐230. McLaughlin, R. J., Sorg, D. H., and Helley, E. J., 1996, Constraints on slip histories of thrust faults of the southwestern San Francisco Bay area from geologic mapping investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 96‐267, p. 65‐70. USGS, 2017a, Soil Type and Shaking Hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/sfbay/soiltype/). ‐, 2017b, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, For seismic design parameter values from the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, which are being adopted into the 2016 ASCE 7 Standard and the 2018 International Building Code, USGS Earthquake Hazard Reduction Website: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php USGS, and CGS, 2006, Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States, from USGS web site: http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/. . WCA, 1977, Geologic map of the Congress Springs Study Area: unpublished consultant map prepared for City of Saratoga by William Cotton and Associates, dated May 3, 1977, scale 1:3000 WGOCEP, 1996, Database of Potential Sources For Earthquakes Larger than Magnitude 6 in Northern California, by The Working Group on Northern California Earthquake Potential: U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 96‐705 (http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/hazprep/NCEP/). Witter, R. C., Knudsen, K. L., Sowers, J. M., Wentworth, C. M., Koehler, R. D., Randolph, C. E., Brooks, S. K., and Gans, K. D., 2006, Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California: USGS Open File Report 2006‐1037 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/). 249 Page |41 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG INVESTIGATIVE LIMITATIONS 1) The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of the proposed project with respect to erosion and hillslope stability for its intended use as a recreation trail. 2) Our observations were limited to surface expressions and limited natural and artificial exposures of subsurface materials at and adjacent to the project site. For the above reasons, the conclusions should be considered limited in extent. The plan does not guarantee stability of the trail, rather it is intended to provide recommendations that will improve visitor access and reduce the likelihood of future trail related erosion with sediment delivery to streams. Unforeseen drainage conditions may result in additional erosion. 3) This written report comprises all of our professional opinions, conclusions and recommendations. This report supersedes any previous oral or written communications concerning our opinions, conclusions and recommendations. 4) The conclusions and recommendations noted in this report are based on probability and in no way imply the site will not possibly be subjected to ground failure or seismic shaking so intense that structures or roads will be severely damaged or destroyed. 5) This report is issued with the understanding that it is the duty and responsibility of the client, or his or her representative or agent, to ensure that the recommendations contained herein are fully implemented. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property or landform can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or to the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside our control. 250 Page |A‐1 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project: Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report: APPENDIX A TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG APPENDIX A: BORING LOGS AND GEOTECHNICAL LAB WORK 251 SHEET NO. (831) 722-1475 DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NO. REVISED: DATE: SCL11622 April 2019 FIGURE NO. 1 KEY TO BORING LOGS Saratoga-To-The Sea 116 E. LAKE AVENUE, WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 GEOTECHNICAL AND COASTAL ENGINEERS HARO, KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES, INC. AK 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 Job No.: Project No.: Run By:MD Client: Date: Checked By:DC Project: Boring: 1 4 10 Sample: 1-1 4-1 10-1 Depth, ft.: 2.5 1.5 2 Soil Type: Wt of Dish & Dry Soil, gm 658.0 454.7 532.5 Weight of Dish, gm 337.5 311.5 278.2 Weight of Dry Soil, gm 320.5 143.2 254.3 Wt. Ret. on #4 Sieve, gm 56.5 12.8 22.8 Wt. Ret. on #200 Sieve, gm 157.5 58.9 127.0 % Gravel 17.6 8.9 9.0 % Sand 31.5 32.2 41.0 % Silt & Clay 50.9 58.9 50.0 SCL11622 3/19/2019 Saratoga-To-The-Sea (S2S0 032-470 Haro, Kasunich & Associates Reddish Yellow Sandy CLAY w/ Gravel Very Dark Gray Sandy Fat CLAY Dark Brown Sandy CLAY Remarks: As an added benefit to our clients, the gravel fraction may be included in this report. Whether or not it is included is dependent upon both the technician's time available and if there is a significant enough amount of gravel. The gravel is always included in the percent retained on the #200 sieve but may not be weighed separately to determine the percentage, especially if there is only a trace amount, (5% or less). #200 Sieve Wash Analysis ASTM D 1140 Figure 12 263 Project: Remarks:Client:Project No. %<#200%<#40PIPLLLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT Source: 4 Sample No.: 4-1 Elev./Depth: 1.5' Figure 13 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT COOPER TESTING LABORATORY USCS Haro, Kasunich & Associates032-470 382765Very Dark Gray Sandy Fat CLAY Saratoga-To-The-Sea (S2S) - SCL11622 5 10 20 25 30 4062.6 63.8 65.0 66.2 67.4 68.6 NUMBER OF BLOWSWATER CONTENT10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT 10 20 30 40 50 60 PLASTICITY INDEX4 7 CL-ML C L o r O L C H o r O H ML or OL MH or OH Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 264 CTL Job #:Project #:By:MD Client:Date:Checked:PJ Project Name:Remolding Info: Phi (deg)Ult. Phi (deg) 1 2 3 4 Boring:Hand Tamp 1 Hand Tamp 1 Hand Tamp 1 Sample: Depth (ft):1.5 1.5 1.5 Normal Load (psf)500 1000 2000 Dry Mass of Specimen (g)121.8 120.2 123.2 Initial Height (in)1.01 1.01 1.01 Initial Diameter (in)2.42 2.42 2.42 Initial Void Ratio 0.687 0.711 0.676 Initial Moisture (%)22.9 23.9 22.9 Initial Wet Density (pcf)122.8 122.1 123.6 Initial Dry Density (pcf)99.9 98.5 100.6 Initial Saturation (%)90.0 90.9 91.6 ΔHeight Consol (in)0.0064 0.0124 0.0168 At Test Void Ratio 0.676 0.690 0.648 At Test Moisture (%)23.8 24.6 23.5 At Test Wet Density (pcf)124.5 124.3 126.3 At Test Dry Density (pcf)100.6 99.8 102.3 At Test Saturation (%)95.0 96.3 97.8 Strain Rate (%/min)0.01 0.01 0.01 Strengths Picked at 5%5%5% Shear Stress (psf)920 1455 2622 ΔHeight (in) at 5%-0.0225 -0.0106 -0.0058 Ultimate Stress (psf) © Consolidated Drained Direct Shear (ASTM D3080) Haro, Kasunich & Associates Saratoga-To-The-Sea (S2s) 032-470 SCL11622 3/18/2019 Gravel in shear plane on all 3 samples may influence results. Due to the high apparent phi angle, no phi or cohesion is reported. To add phi and cohesion to the report go to the “phi” tab and in cells G30, G31, H30, and H31 enter end points for a line through the 3 data points. Reddish Brown Sandy CLAY w/ Gravel Visual Description: Reddish Brown Sandy CLAY w/ Gravel Reddish Brown Sandy CLAY w/ Gravel Remarks: Specimen Data Cohesion (psf)Ult. Cohesion (psf) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0Shear Stress (psf)Deformation (%) Shear Stress vs. Deformation Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000Shear Stress, psfNormal Load, psf Shear Stress vs. Normal Load Peak Shear Stress Ult. Stress Ultimate -0.1600 -0.1400 -0.1200 -0.1000 -0.0800 -0.0600 -0.0400 -0.0200 0.0000 0.0200 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0Delta h (in)Deformation (%) Change in Height Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 49 400 Figure 14 265 CTL Job #:Project #:By:MD Client:Date:Checked:PJ Project Name:Remolding Info: Phi (deg)31.0 Ult. Phi (deg) 1 2 3 4 Boring:Hand Tamp 2 Hand Tamp 2 Hand Tamp 2 Sample: Depth (ft): Normal Load (psf)500 1000 2000 Dry Mass of Specimen (g)116.2 112.1 118.0 Initial Height (in)1.00 1.02 1.01 Initial Diameter (in)2.42 2.42 2.42 Initial Void Ratio 0.750 0.846 0.749 Initial Moisture (%)22.3 23.1 20.3 Initial Wet Density (pcf)117.8 112.4 115.9 Initial Dry Density (pcf)96.3 91.3 96.4 Initial Saturation (%)80.2 73.7 73.0 ΔHeight Consol (in)0.0137 0.0167 0.0375 At Test Void Ratio 0.726 0.816 0.684 At Test Moisture (%)23.9 26.8 22.5 At Test Wet Density (pcf)121.0 117.7 122.6 At Test Dry Density (pcf)97.7 92.8 100.1 At Test Saturation (%)88.9 88.5 88.6 Strain Rate (%/min)0.01 0.01 0.01 Strengths Picked at 5%5%5% Shear Stress (psf)472 740 1379 ΔHeight (in) at 5%-0.0026 0.0031 0.0142 Ultimate Stress (psf) © Consolidated Drained Direct Shear (ASTM D3080) Haro, Kasunich & Associates Saratoga-To-The-Sea (S2S) 032-470 SCL11622 3/19/2019 Gravel in shear plane of Sample 3 may influence results. Dark Brown Clayey SAND w/ Gravel & organics Visual Description: Dark Brown Clayey SAND w/ Gravel & organics Dark Brown Clayey SAND w/ Gravel & organics Remarks: 200 Specimen Data Cohesion (psf)Ult. Cohesion (psf) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0Shear Stress (psf)Deformation (%) Shear Stress vs. Deformation Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000Shear Stress, psfNormal Load, psf Shear Stress vs. Normal Load Peak Shear Stress Ult. Stress Ultimate -0.0100 -0.0050 0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250 0.0300 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0Delta h (in)Deformation (%) Change in Height Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Figure 15 266 Page |B‐1 May 15, 2019 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report: APPENDIX B TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY PLAN DOCUMENTS 267 ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅ʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ΄ͲͿ΅Ͳ͑ʹͽͲͲ͑ʹΆͿ΅Ί͑͝ʹͲͽͺͷͿͺͲ·ͺʹͺͿͺ΅Ί͑;ͲͽʹͲ΅ͺͿ͑;ͲPROJECT SITESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS User CommunityQUARRYPARKSAN BORN PARKWINERYCONGRESSSPRINGSROADSUBJECT SITESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (HongKong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityͻͶʹ΅͑͵Ͷ΄ʹͺ΅ͺͿ͠΄ʹͶ͑΅Ͷ͑ ΄Ͷ͵͑ ΅Ͳͺͽ͑ ͺͿʹͽΆ͵Ͷ΄͑ ΅Ͷ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͑ ͷ͑ ͤ͑ ;ͺͽͶ΄͑ ͷ͑ͶʹͶͲ΅ͺͿͲͽ͑ ΅Ͳͺͽ͑ ͷ͑ Ͷ͵Ͷ΄΅ͺͲͿ͑ ͲͿ͵͑ ͶΆͶ΄΅ͺͲͿ͑ Ά΄Ͷ͑͟ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅ͶͽΊ͑ͣͨ͑͟;ͺͽͶ΄͑Έͺͽͽ͑ͳͶ͑ͿͶΈ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͑Ͳ΅͑ͥ͑΅͑ͦ͑ͷ΅͑Έͺ͵΅ͬ͑ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅ͶͽΊ͑ͤ͑͟͡;ͺͽͶ΄͑Έͺͽͽ͑ͳͶ͑Ά΅Ͷ͵͑ͲͽͿ͑ͲͿ͑ͶΉͺ΅ͺͿ͑ͽ͵͑·ͶΈͿ͑Ͳ͵͑͟΅ͶͶ͑Έͺͽͽ͑ͳͶ͑ͷΆ͑ΈͲ΅ͶʹΆ΄Ͷ͑ʹ΄΄ͺͿ΄͑͝ ͥ͑ͿͶΈ͑ ΅Ͳͺͽ͑ ͳͺ͵Ͷ΄͑ ͙ͣ͑͡ ΅͑ ͨ͑͡ ͽͺͿͶͲ͑ ͷͶͶ΅͑ ͶͲʹ͚͑͟ ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅ͶͽΊ͑ ͪͦͦ͑ͽͺͿͶͲ͑ͷͶͶ΅͑ͷ͑ͽΈ͙͑ͭ͑ͤ͑ͷ΅͑ͺ͚͑Ͷ΅ͲͺͿͺͿ͑ΈͲͽͽ΄͑ ͲͿ͵͑ͤͧͦ͑ͽͺͿͶͲ͑ͷͶͶ΅͑ͷ͑ʹͼ͑ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳΆ΅΅Ͷ΄΄͑ͲͶ͑΄Ͷ͵͑͑͟ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅΄͑͑ʹͽͺͶͿ΅͑ʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑Άͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄͑ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͑͡͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑Ͷ;;Ͳ͑ͳΆͼͲͽ΅Ͷ͑͝Ͷ͙͚͑ͥͩ͑ͩͧͩͣͨͥ͑͢͡͞ΖΓΦΣΜΙΒΝΥΖΣͱΤΒΣΒΥΠΘΒ͟ΔΒ͟ΦΤ͑͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶͺͿ͑Ͷͽͺ΄΅͑͑ͽͲͿ͑ͶͲͶ͑΅ͺ;΅Ί͑ʹ͑ͳͶ΄΅͑͝ʹͶ͑ͣ͑͢͡͡ʹͽΆ;ͳͺͲ͑΄΅ͶͶ΅͑΄ͲͿ΅Ͳ͑ʹΆ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͧ͑͡͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑΅ͺ;͑ͳͶ΄΅͙͑ΥΚΞΓΖΤΥͱΔΠΒΤΥΘΖΠ͟ΔΠΞ͚͙͚͙͚͑ͩͤ͑ͥͣͦͦͩͤͣ͑ͩͤ͑ͤͤͣ͑ͨͨͪ͑͑͢͢͢͞ʹͶͽͽ͑͑ʹͺ·ͺͽ͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶ͑ΈͲ΅ͶΈͲΊ΄͑ʹͿ΄Άͽ΅ͺͿ͑͝ͺͿʹ͑ͦͪ͟͡Ͳ͑΄Έͺͷ΅͑΄΅ͶͶ΅͑΄ͲͿ΅Ͳ͑ʹΆ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͧ͑͡͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑;Ͳ΅΅͑ΈͶͽ͵΄͑͝Ͷ͙͚͙͚͑ͩͤ͑ͥͣͪͣͥͩ͑ͩͤ͑ͦͧͧͩͥͩͧ͑͢͢͢͞͞ʹͶͽͽ͑͑Ͷ΅ͶʹͿͺʹͲͽ͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶ͑Ͳ͑͝ͼͲ΄ΆͿͺʹ͑ͲͿ͵͑Ͳ΄΄ʹͺͲ΅Ͷ΄͑ͧ͑͢͢ͶͲ΄΅͑ͽͲͼͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ͑ΈͲ΅΄Ϳ·ͺͽͽͶ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨͧ͑͑͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑ͻͿ͑ͼͲ΄ΆͿͺʹ͙͚͙͚͑ͩͤ͑ͨͣͣͥͨͦ͑ͩͤ͑ͣͥͨͦͥͧͧ͑͢͢͢͞͞ʹͶͽͽ͑͑΄΅Άʹ΅ΆͲͽ͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶ͑;ͲΊͿͶ͑΄΅Άʹ΅ΆͲͽ͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶͺͿ͑͝ͺͿʹ͑ͩͨ͟͢͞ͳ͑Ͷͽ͑͵Ͳ͵͑΄΅ͶͶ΅͑;Ϳ΅ͶͶΊ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͧ͑͡͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑΄΅Ͷ·Ͷ͑;ͲΊͿͶ͙͚͙͚͑ͩͤ͑ͤͨͣͥͥͦͦ͑͑͑ͩͤ͑ͥͣͩͦͨͪ͑͢͢͞͡͞ʹͶͽͽ͑͑ͽͲͿ͵΄ʹͲͶ͑ͽͲͿͿͶ͑ͽͲʹͶΈͼ΄͑ͧͣͦ͑͢΄Ͳ΅΅Άʹͼ͑Ͳ·ͶͿΆͶ͑͝΄Άͺ΅Ͷ͑ͤ͑͡͡ͳͶͼͶͽͶΊ͑͝ʹͲͽͺͷͿͺͲ͑ͪͥͨͪ͑͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑ͻͶ΄΄Ͷ͑ͻͿͶ΄͑ͻͻͿͶ΄ͱͽͲʹͶΈͼ΄͟ʹ;͙͚͑ͦͩͥͩͤͩͦ͑͢͢͡͞ͶΉ΅͑ͤͤͤͧ͑͑͟ͳͺͽͺ΄΅͑͑͑͑͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑;ͲͿΆͷͲʹ΅ΆͶ͑͑΄ͶͶ΅͑ͺͿ͵ͶΉ͑͑΄ͶͶ΅͑΅ͺ΅ͽͶ͑ʹ͑͢͟͡ ΅ͺ΅ͽͶ͑΄ͶͶ΅͑͑ʹͣ͑͟͡ʹͣ͑͟͢ʹͣͣ͑͟ʹͣͤ͑͟ʹͣͥ͑͟ʹͣͦ͑͟ʹͣͧ͑͟ʹͤ͑͟͢ʹͤͣ͑͟ʹͤͤ͑͟ʹͥ͑͟͡ʹͦ͑͟͡ʹͦ͑͟͢ʹͦͣ͑͟ʹͦͤ͑͟ʹͦͥ͑͟ʹͦͦ͑͟΄͑͢΄ͣ͑΄ͤ͑͑·Ͷ·ͺͶΈ͑;Ͳ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑͑͢ͷ͑ͦ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͣ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͤ͑ͷ͑ͦ΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͥ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͦ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑΅ͲͳͽͶ͑ͷ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑͑͢΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑ͣ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑ͤ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑΅ͲͺͽͶͲ͵͑΄ͶͶ΅΄͑͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑͑͢ͷ͑ͦ͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑ͣ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑ͤ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑ͥ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑ͦ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑ͶͿͶͲͽ͑Ϳ΅Ͷ΄͑΄΅Άʹ΅ΆͲͽ͑΄ͶͶ΅΄͑ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅Ͷ͑ͶͲ΅͑Έͼ͑ΆͲͿ΅ͺ΅ͺͶ΄͑ͺͽͽ΄ͽͶ͑Ͳ͵ͺͶͿ΅͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͽͶͿ΅͑ͷ΅͑ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑Ͳ΅ͺͲͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ʹΆ΅͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ʹͼ͑ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑Ͷ΅ͲͺͿͺͿ͑ΈͲͽͽ͑Ͳ͵͑΅͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑ ΅΅Ͳͽ͖͖͑͑ͤ͑͡͞͡ ͤ͑͡ ͣͧͧ͑͝͡ ͤ͑͡ ͦͦ͑͑͑ ͑ ͖͖ͣͩͥͦ͑ͤ͑͑ͥ͑͝͡͞͡ ͤ͑͢͡ ͦͦ͑͢͝͡ ͨͦ͑ ͖͖ͧ͑͑͑͑ͨͨ͑ͥ͑͑ͦ͑͢͡͝͡͡͞͡ ͦͦ͑ ͤͦ͑͝͡͡ ͪͦ͑͢ ͖͖ͤ͑͑͑͑ͤͪ͑ͦ͑͑ͧͦ͑͑ͣͧͨ͑͢͡͝͡͡͡͞͝͡ ͣ͑͢͝͡͡ ͦ͑͡ ͤ͑͢͡ ͑ ͑ ͖͖ͥͦ͑ͧͦ͑͑ͨͦ͑͝͡͡͞ ͑͑ͨͨ͑͡ ͨ͑͡ ͣͦͦ͑ ͑ ͑ ͖ͪͦ͑ͯͨͦ͑͑͑ͪͦ͑͑ͦͨ͑͢͝͡͡ ͑ ͑ ͧͧͦ͑Ϳ͠Ͳ͑͑͑͑͑͑ͨͦ͑͢͢͝ ͨͦ͑͢ ͩ͑͢͡͡΅΅Ͳͽ͑ͣͦ͑͢ ͤͤͦ͑͢͡͝ ͣͤͧͦ͑͝ ͤͧͦ͑ͪͦͦ͑ ͨͦ͑͢͢͝ ͨͦ͑͢ ͧͣͦ͑͑͢͢͝ʹΆ΅ͫ͑͑͑͑ͣͣ͑͝͡͡ʹΊ͑ͷͺͽͽͫ͑͑ ͑ ͑ ͣͣ͑͝͡͡ʹΊ͑ͺ;΅͑ʹͼ͑͑ ͑ ί͑͑͢͡͡ʹΊ͑͑;ͲΉͺ;Ά;͑ͷͺͽͽͫ͑͑͑ͭ͑ͧ͑ͷͶͶ΅͑͵ͶͶ͑;ͲΉͺ;Ά;͑ʹΆ΅ͫ͑͑ͭ͑ͧ͑ͷͶͶ΅͑ͺ͑͵ͺ΄΅ΆͳͶ͵͑ͲͶͲͫ͑͑ͦͦ͑͟ͲʹͶ΄͑͑Ϳ΅Ͷͫ͑ͶΉʹͲ·Ͳ΅ͺͿ͑·ͽΆ;Ͷ΄͑ͲͶ͑ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅Ͷ͑ͲͿ͵͑;ͲΊ͑͵ͺͷͷͶ͑ͳͲ΄Ͷ͵͑Ϳ͑ʹͿ͵ͺ΅ͺͿ΄͑ͶͿʹΆͿ΅ͶͶ͵͑͵ΆͺͿ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͑͑͟ͲͳͳͶ·ͺͲ΅ͺͿ΄͑͑Ͳͳ͑ ͲͶͲ΅Ͷ͑ͳͲ΄Ͷ͑ʹͼ͑Ͳ͑ Ͳͽ͵Ͷ͑ʹͳ͑ ʹΆ΅͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ʹ΅͑ ʹͶͿ΅Ͷ͑ʹΆͽ·͑ ʹΆͽ·Ͷ΅͑͑ʹΊ͑ ʹΆͳͺʹ͑ΊͲ͵͙͑Ͷ͚͑ ͶΉͺ΄΅ͺͿ͑Ͷ·͑ ͶͽͶ·Ͳ΅ͺͿ͑Ͷ΄΅͑ Ͷ΄΅ͺ;Ͳ΅Ͷ͑ͷ͑ ͷͺ͑ͷͳ͑ ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ͷͽ͑ ͷͽΈ͑ͽͺͿͶ͑ͷ΅͑ ͷ΅͑͑ ΆͿ͵͑ͺͿ͑ ͺͿʹ͑ͺͿ·͑ ͺͿ·Ͷ΅͑ͽͷ͑ ͽͺͿͲ͑ͷ΅͑ͽΈ͵͑ ͽͲͶ͑Έ͵Ί͑͵Ͷͳͺ΄͑;͑ ;Ͳ͵ͿͶ͑Ϳ΅΄͑ Ϳ΅͑΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ͙͑Ϳ͚͑ ͿͶΈ͑ ͑͑ Ͳͼ͑ͳ͑ Ͳ΅ͺͲͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ͷͳ͑ ʹͼ͑ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑͵͑ ͽͽͺͿ͑͵ͺ͑Ͷ͵͑ ʹͼ͑ͶͿͶΊ͑͵ͺ΄΄ͺͲ΅͑͑ Ͷ͵Έ͵͑΄͑ ʹͼ͑΄ͽͶ͑΅Ͷʹ΅ͺͿ͑Έ͑ Ͷ΅ͲͺͿͺͿ͑ΈͲͽͽ͑΅ʹ͑ ΅͑ͷ͑ʹΆ΅͑͑΅Ͷ͑ ΅Ͷ͑ͷ͑΄ͽͶ͑΅Ί͑ ΅ΊͺʹͲͽ͑΄΅Ͳ͑ ΄΅Ͳ΅ͺͿ͑΄ͼ͑ ΄ͺͼͶ͑͑͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͑Ϳ΅Ͳ΅ͺͿ΄͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ͑ʹͲͽͽ͑Ά΅͑1C1.2DETAILPAGEͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡΅ͺ΅ͽͶ͑΄ͶͶ΅͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳͦͣͣͪ͟͢͠͠͡ΉPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"ʹ͖ͧͦ͑͢͟͡͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅268 ###!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(ààààQUARRY PARKWINERYSANBORN PARKCONGRESSSPRINGSROAD(HWY9)CONGRESSSPRINGSCREEKCONGRESSSPRINGSCREEKPROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE)BRIDGE 1BRIDGE 2BRIDGE 3BRIDGE 4PRIVATEWINERYROADWAYWATERDISTRICTUTILITYROADPROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE)SHEET C2.1SHEET C2.2SHEET C2.3SHEET C2.4SHEET C2.5LOWER STAGING AREA(ALONG ROADS AND PULLOUTSIN QUARRY PARK)WINERY ROADTRAIL HEADQUARRY PARKTRAIL HEADUPPER STAGING AREA 1(AT ROAD TURN OUT)UPPER STAGING AREA 2(ON SERVICE ROAD)TEMPORARY ACCESS(ALONG PG&E UTILITY ROAD)SB1SB2SB3SB4SB5SB6SB7SB8SB9SB10SB11SB12SB13SB14SB15SB16SB17SB18PG&E POWER LINE CORRIDORPG&ETOWERACCESSR D PG&ETOWERACCESSRD!©BC4.0!©AC4.00500950090008500800075007000 6500 6000550050004500400035003000250020001500100016000155001500014500140001350013000125001200011500110001050010000 950 9008508007507001300125013501450115011001200105010001700175065018001600185019001400165015501500 60016501600 140016501550150016506000 100 200 300 400 500Feet[LEGEND!STANEW TRAILROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONHIGHWAYMAIN ROADROCKED ROADUNSURFACE ROADEPHEMERAL STREAMINTERMITTENT STREAMPERENNIAL STREAMPARCEL BOUNDARYPGE POWER LINES#PG&E TOWER!(TRAIL SIGN!(TRAIL BENCHàPROPOSED BRIDGEͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣ͟͡·Ͷ·ͺͶΈ͑;Ͳ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳͦͣͣͪ͟͢͠͠͡ΉͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"PRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅269 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!èèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèDDDDDDGGGGGGGGG#7#7#7#7#7#7#7#7"""""""""""@A@A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!kCLEAN (E) DITCHDRAIN AT 8% (MIN)(N) 18" X 25' HDPE CULVERT AT DRY SWALEPLACE PIPE AT NATIVE GRADE (45%+/-) CONSTRUCT TRAIL ON 15 CY OF FILL. KEY AND BENCH FILL PER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. FILL CAN BE OBTAINED FROM FULL BENCH CONSTRUCTION ON ADJACENT SEGMENTS OF TRAIL.CLEAN (E) DITCH 75 LFDRAIN TO CULVERT INLETROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN NUTMEG TREES OK TO CUT IF REQUIRED.ROUTE ABOVE SLOPE BREAK(N) WOOD LAG RETAINING WALL30 LF X 2.5 FT H; 4 FT TREADCONSTRUCT TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 24 IN BAYROUTE TRAILBETWEEN TREESSWITCHBACK #110' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 35% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT +/- THICK, 4 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30 LF CUT BENCH, 3 FT +/- HIGHFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER(N) ROCK RW OR (N) ROCK FILL BENCH55 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADTRAIL TRAVERSES 65% TO 80% SIDE SLOPES. CONSTRUCTRETAINING WALL OR BUTTRESS TO MINIMIZE CUT. IMPORTROCK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROCK RETAINING WALL. SUITABLE ROCK MAY BE FOUND ALONG NEARBY TRAIL SEGMENTS. ENGINEER TO VERIFY AT TIME OFCONSTRUCTION.ROUTE TRAILBETWEEN TREESAS FEASIBLEROCKYROCKY(N) 18" X 30' DITCH RELIEF CULVERT(N) 35 LF FILL BENCHBUILD UP TRAIL ON COMPACTED FILL TO RAMP UP OVER OLD ROAD CUT. EST. 3' D; 10 CY. USE APPROVED FILL FROM ADJACENT CUTS.PROTECT TREEREMOVE 18' SNAGAND 10" BAYDRY SWALEAVOID AND PROTECT24" BAY TREEWOOD RAT NEST(AVOID IF FEASIBLE)EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CAUSED BY OVERLAND FLOW ORIGINATING FROM POOR DRAINAGE ON UPSLOPE QUARRY ROAD. CORRECT DRAINAGE ON UPPER ROAD. LARGE GROVE OF BAY TREESROCKYROCKYTRAIL ROUTED THROUGHEDGE OF TWO WOOD RATNESTS. MINIMIZE IMPACT TO EXTENT FEASIBLE.TRAIL TO BE ROUTED THROUGHSMALL GROUP OF BAY TREES.(ONE EACH 6 IN, 12 IN, 18 IN)PROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE)SHEET C3.1OLD SLIDEBRIDGE 1: 40 LFCORRECT ROAD DRAINAGEON QUARRY ROADSHEET C4.0050030002500200015001000B9B1012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061A62A63A64A65A66A67A68A69A61110010501000950 900800 750 70010501000850 750650020 40 60 80 100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣ͟͢΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙͑͢ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅270 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GGGGGG@A@A@A@A@A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ROCKYROCKYROCKYROCKYLESS ROCKYABUT WALL INTO ROOT WAD.PROTECT TREESPROBABLE UNSTABLE SLOPEBULGING TOOF SLIDE(AVOID CUT)ROUTE TRAILBETWEEN TREESSWITCHBACK #37' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 60% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 40 LF ALLEN BLOCK WALL, 4 FT H (MAX) COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FILL, EST 18 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 40+ LF CUT BANCH, 7 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 18 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERTRAIL TO BE ROUTED THROUGHSMALL GROUP OF BAY TREES.(ONE EACH 6 IN, 12 IN, 18 IN)REST AREA(N) BENCHTRAIL ROUTED BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF BAY TREESOK TO CUT IF NECESSARYROCKYROCKYCUT LEANING BAY(N) ROCK RETAINING WALL30 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADCONSTRUCT TO AVOID UNDERCUTTING UPSLOPE GROUP OF BAY TREES(N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK OR WOOD LAG)120 LF X 2.5 FT h X 4 FT TREADROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBY(N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK OR WOOD LAG)80 LF X 2.5 FT h X 4 FT TREADROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBY.CONSTRUCT TO AVOID UNDERCUTTING 36" BAYPROTECT TREEROCKYHISTORIC DRAG LINETRAIL WRAPS AROUND NOSE OF RIDGETRAIL ROUTED ACROSSGENTLY SLOPING BENCH.MINIMAL CUT AND FILLCONGRESS SPRINGS CREEK OVERLOOK(N) 120 LF OF PARTIAL BENCH TRAIL TO EXTEND OUT AND BACK FROM OVERLOOK.(N) 70 LF ROCK FILL BENCH TRAIL ROUTED BELOW ROCKY OUTCROPUSE ONSITE ROCK TO SUPPORT TRAIL TREADADJCENT BAY TREES MAY BE CUT AS NEEDED.SWITCHBACK #2SWITCHBACK ON BENCHFIELD FIT(N) RETAINING WALL (WOOD LAG, ROCK, OR WOOD CRIB)225 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4' W TREAD80% CROSS SLOPE(N) RETAINING WALL (WOOD LAG, ROCK, OR WOOD CRIB)50 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4' W TREAD75% CROSS SLOPECONSTRUCT TO MINIMIZE CUT INTO UNSTABLE SLOPE ABOVE. SWITCHBACK #47' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 50% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H (MAX), EST 11 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 40+ LF CUT BENCH, 5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 11 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERROCKYMINIMUM CUT TO PROTECT FIRCLAYEY SOILSFROM STN XXX TO XXXROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN TREES. PROTECT TREES TO EXTENT FEASIBLE(N) RETAINING WALL20 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREAD ACROSS OLD SLIDE SCARPROTECT ADJCENT 12" MADRONESWITCHBACK #612' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT H, EST 3 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 35+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 3 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #813' RADIUS, 9% TRAIL GRADOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, FIELD FIT AS DIRECTROAVOID WOOD RAT NEST IF FEASIBLE(N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK, WOOD LAG, OR WOOD CRIB)12 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBYCLAYEY SOILSINSTALL SILT FENCE BELOW TRAIL TO CONTAIN DEBRIS THAT MAYFAIL DURING CONSTRUCTIONSHEET C3.2CONGRESSSPRINGSCREEKROUTE TRAIL UP ~15% GRADIENT BENCHBRIDGE 2: 70 LF(N) BENCH(N) BENCHHELICOPTER DROP ZONE 1FOR BRIDGE SUPPLIES7500600055005000450040003500300110010509008508007501000 950 1150 1100 9008501050115011001100900B8B5B4B6B711011111211311411511611711811912012112212312412512612714114214315715815964A65A66A67A68A69A616263646566676869707172737475767778818283848586878889909192939495969798991001011021031041051061071081090 20406080100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͣ͟΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙ͣ͑ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅271 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG#7#7#7#7#7@A@A@A@A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CUT CT FIRROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN TREES. PROTECT TREES TO EXTENT FEASIBLESWITCHBACK #5~ 17' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 20% CROSS-SLOPEFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERROCKYSWITCHBACK #612' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT H, EST 3 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 35+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 3 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERTRAIL ROUTED THROUGH OR ADJACENT TO WOOD RAT NESTSSWITCHBACK #813' RADIUS, 9% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FT H, EST 3 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 3 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #712' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 30% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT H, EST 4 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 4 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERROUTE TRAIL ACROSSFALLEN TREE - REMOVEROOTWADROCKY RIDGEAVOID WOOD RAT NEST IF FEASIBLEAVOID WOOD RAT NEST IF FEASIBLEVERY ROCKY GROUNDTREAD LIKELY TO BE SUPPORTED ON ROCKFILL BENCHROCKYLESS ROCKY2 WOOD RATS NESTS - ROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN NESTS AS FEASIBLE. IF NOTAVOID ONE OF THE TWO.TRAIL ROUTED TOWARDS LOWER END OF GROUP OF BAY TREES. REMOVE 5 TO 6 TREES. SWITCHBACK #912' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 20% CROSS-SLOPEPARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTIONFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #118' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 40% CROSS-SLOPEROUTE BETWEEN TREESDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 2.5 FT H, EST 6 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 20+ LF CUT BENCH, 3.5 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #137' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 65% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 45 LF ALLEN BLOCK WALL, 4.6 FT H (MAX) COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FILL, EST 24 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 50+ LF CUT BENCH, 8.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 24 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.ROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN TREES.ROCKY RIDGETRAIL TO BE ROUTEDTHROUGH WOOD RAT NEST(N) ROCK FILL BENCH 30 LF X 3 FT HIGH X 4 FT WABUNDANT ROCK EXPOSED IN CUTSWITCHBACK #108' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPEROUTE BETWEEN TREESDOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 10 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 10 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #1210' RADIUS, 19% TRAIL GRADE, 25% ROCKY RIDGEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 20 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FT H, EST 1 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 10+ LF CUT BENCH, 1.5 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #149' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 30% ROCKY RIDGEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 25 LF FILL, 1.5 FT H (MAX.), EST 1.5 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 20+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.ROUTE TRAIL THROUGH AND AROUND SEVERAL GROUPS OF BAY TREES. TRAIL SHOULD BE LOCATED ABOVE THE SLOPE BREAK TO MINIMIZE CUTS. IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED THEN OUTER TRAIL EDGE MAY BE SUPPORTED ON A ROCK FILL BENCHDEBRIS FLOWSCARSWITCHBACK #168' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPEROUTE AROUND TREESDOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 7 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #158' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 40% CROSS-SLOPEROUTE AROUND TREESDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 2.5 FT H, EST 6+ CYUPSLOPE LEG: 20+ LF CUT BENCH, 3.5 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSCENIC OVERLOOKOF STREAMTRAIL ROUTED BELOW AND THROUGHGROVE OF BAY TREESTRAIL ROUTED BETWEEN TREES(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)20 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREADWALL TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 36 OAKSWITCHBACK #179' RADIUS ON 45% SLOPESSUPPORT OUTER EDGE OF TRAIL ON FILL BENCH(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)25 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREADWALL TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 36 OAKSWITCHBACK #1810' RADIUS ON LESS THAN 30% SLOPESPARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTION(N) ROCK FILL TRAIL WRAPS AROUND NOSEOF ROCKY/BEDROCK RIDGEAVOID WOOD RAT NESTIF FEASIBLEBRIDGE 3: 50 LFSHEET C3.3ROCKY(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)25 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADTO PROTECT UPSLOPE TREE(N) BENCH(N) BENCH(N) BENCH(N) BENCH(N) BENCHHELICOPTER DROP ZONE 2FOR BRIDGE SUPPLIES950090008500800075007000 6500 60001200011500110001050010000155015001350130011501100145014001100105010009501250120010001500120010501200125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259B2B1HT1B3020406080100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͤ͟΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙ͤ͑ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅272 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!k#AVOID WOOD RAT NEST IF FEASIBLEROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN TREESROCKYMANZANITABRIDGE 4: 20 LFROOT WADLEANING 32 IN OAK - THE TREE IS AT HIGHRISK FOR FAILURE AND SHOULD BE CUT.IF THE TREE IS CUT THEN THE BETTER TRAIL ALIGNMENT IS BELOW.ROUTE BETWEEN TREES(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)25 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADTO PROTECT UPSLOPE TREE(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)25 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADTO PROTECT UPSLOPE TREEPG&E TOWER ACCESS ROAD(N) BENCH(N) BENCHWATER DISTRICT UTILITY ROADPG&E TOWER ACCESS ROADPG&E UTILITY CORRIDOR1400013500130001250012000249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275278279 280280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302276277303310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337175016501600155015001550 150014501400 170016501350 160016000 20406080100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͥ͟΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙ͥ͑ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅273 kPROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATETRAIL ROUTED ALONGOLD OVERGROWN ROADMINIMAL GRADING REQUIREDCONNECTION WITHCONGRESS SPRINGS ROADWINERYROADWATER DISTRICT UTILITY ROADOLDOVERGROWNROADPG&E UTILITY CORRIDORSHEET C4.016000 15500150001450Text 16001550150014501400135013001250120011501650160011001650165015500 20406080100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͦ͟΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙ͦ͑ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅274 STA START STA END LENGTH (FT) SLOPE GRADIENT APPROX. TRAIL GRADIENT TRAIL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION WALL TYPE WALL HEIGHT (FT) COMMENT 0 30 30 30-40% 10 5 FILL BENCH (N) 35 LF FILL BENCH WITH (N) 18" X 30' HDPE CULVERTBUILD UP TRAIL ON COMPACTED FILL TO RAMP UP OVER OLD ROAD CUT. EST. 3' D; 10 CY. USE APPROVED FILL FROM ADJACENT CUTS. (N) 18" X 20' DITCH RELIEF CULVERTSLOPE AT 5% CLEAN (E) DITCH, 75 LF, DRAIN TO CULVERT 30 40 10 40-50% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 40 55 15 40-50% 10 5 CUT BENCH 55 110 65 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 110 155 45 50-65% 2 4 CUT BENCH 155 165 10 40-50% 2 4.5 FILL BENCH (N) 18" X 25' HDPE CULVERT AT DRY SWALE: PLACE PIPE AT NATIVE GRADE (45%+/-) CONSTRUCT TRAIL ON 15 CY OF FILL. KEY AND BENCH FILL PER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. FILL CAN BE OBTAINED FROM FULL BENCH CONSTRUCTION ON ADJACENT SEGMENTS OF TRAIL. 165 335 170 40-50% 12 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 335 380 45 65-75% 4 4 CUT BENCH 380 430 50 40-50% 2 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 430 460 30 65-75% 5 4 RETAINING WALL WOOD LAG 2.5 (N) WOOD LAG RETAINING WALL30 LF X 2.5 FT H; 4 FT TREAD. CONSTRUCT TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 24 IN BAY 460 520 60 65-75% 5 4 CUT BENCH 520 570 50 65-75% 0 4 CUT BENCH 570 720 150 50-65% 4 4 PARTIAL BENCH 720 800 80 40-50% 2 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 800 865 65 30-40% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 865 1030 165 0-30% 2 5 PARTIAL BENCH EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CAUSED BY OVERLAND FLOW ORIGINATING FROM POOR DRAINAGE ON UPSLOPE QUARRY ROAD. CORRECT DRAINAGE ON UPPER ROAD. 1030 1105 75 0-30% 2 5 PARTIAL BENCH 1105 1210 106 30-40% 4 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1210 1245 35 4 BRIDGE BRIDGE 1 1245 1265 14 30-40% 5 4.5 FILL BENCH 1265 1295 30 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 1295 1405 110 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1405 1450 45 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 1450 1495 45 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1495 1635 140 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1635 1655 20 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1655 1685 30 50-65% 7 4 PARTIAL BENCH 1685 1740 55 40-50% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1740 1890 150 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 1890 2005 115 0-30% 4 5 PARTIAL BENCH 2005 2250 245 30-40% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 2250 2305 55 0-30% 8 5 PARTIAL BENCH 2305 2410 105 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 2410 2515 105 40-50% 9 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 2515 2545 30 30-40% 10 4.5 FILL BENCH SWITCHBACK #110' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 35% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT +/- THICK, 4 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30 LF CUT BENCH, 3 FT +/- HIGH FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 2545 2565 20 30-40% 0.25 4.5 CUT BENCH 2565 2630 65 >75% 15 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) ROCK RW OR (N) ROCK FILL BENCH55 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD TRAIL TRAVERSES 65% TO 80% SIDE SLOPES. CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL OR ROCK FILL BENCH TO MINIMIZE CUT. IMPORT ROCK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROCK RETAINING WALL (EST 8 CY). FOR ROCK BUTTRESS, SUITABLE ROCK MAY BE FOUND ALONG NEARBY TRAIL SEGMENTS. ENGINEER TO VERIFY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 2630 2780 150 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 2780 2815 35 65-75% 6 4 CUT BENCH 2815 2910 95 50-65% 9 4 PARTIAL BENCH 2910 3005 95 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 3005 3175 170 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 3175 3250 75 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 3250 3320 70 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 3320 3440 120 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 3440 3635 195 50-65% 11 4 PARTIAL BENCH 3635 3725 90 65-75% 10 4 CUT BENCH 3725 3755 30 65-75% 10 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) ROCK RETAINING WALL30 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD CONSTRUCT TO AVOID UNDERCUTTING UPSLOPE GROUP OF BAY TREES 3755 3850 95 65-75% 10 4 CUT BENCH 3850 4050 200 >75% 10 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK OR WOOD LAG)200 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD ROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBY AVOID UNDERCUTTING NEARBY 36" BAY 4050 4120 70 50-65% 10 4 CUT BENCH 4120 4190 70 65-75% 12 4 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 4 (N) 70 LF ROCK FILL BENCH TRAIL ROUTED BELOW ROCKY OUTCROP. USE ONSITE ROCK TO SUPPORT TRAIL TREAD. ADJACENT BAY TREES MAY BE CUT AS NEEDED. 4190 4235 45 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 4235 4305 70 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 4305 4330 25 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 4330 4451 121 0-30% 13 5 PARTIAL BENCH 4451 4521 70 0-30% 5 BRIDGE BRIDGE 2 4521 4521 0 0-30% 15 5 PARTIAL BENCH 4521 4920 399 0-30% 15 5 PARTIAL BENCH 4920 4935 15 0-30% 8 5 FILL BENCH 4935 4960 25 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 4960 5185 225 >75% 9 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 30 (N) RETAINING WALL (WOOD LAG, ROCK, OR WOOD CRIB)225 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4' W TREAD, 80% CROSS SLOPE 5185 5220 35 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 5220 5270 50 65-75% 3 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL (WOOD LAG, ROCK, OR WOOD CRIB)50 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4' W TREAD,75% CROSS SLOPE CONSTRUCT TO MINIMIZE CUT INTO UNSTABLE SLOPE ABOVE. 5270 5315 45 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 5315 5390 75 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 5390 5430 40 50-65% 10 4.5 RETAINING WALL ALLEN BLOCK 4 SWITCHBACK #37' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 60% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 40 LF ALLEN BLOCK OR ROCK WALL, 4 FT H (MAX) COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FILL, EST 18 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 40+ LF CUT BENCH, 7 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 18 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. 5430 5470 40 50-65% 12 4.5 CUT BENCH 7 5470 5520 50 40-50% 11 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 5520 5565 45 50-65% 10 4 CUT BENCH 5565 5585 20 50-65% 15 4 RETAINING WALL WOOD LAG 2 (N) RETAINING WALL20 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREAD ACROSS OLD SLIDE SCAR PROTECT ADJACENT 12" MADRONE 5585 5600 15 40-50% 15 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 5600 5630 30 40-50% 10 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 SWITCHBACK #47' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 50% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H (MAX), EST 11 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 40+ LF CUT BENCH, 5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 11 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 5630 5660 30 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 5660 5800 140 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 5800 5835 35 >75% 10 4 CUT BENCH 35 LF OF TRAIL CONSTRUCTED ACROSS STEEP 75% GRADIENT ROCKY SLOPES. CUT BENCH IS REASONABLE 5835 5865 30 65-75% 14 4 CUT BENCH STA START STA END LENGTH (FT) SLOPE GRADIENT APPROX. TRAIL GRADIENT TRAIL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION WALL TYPE WALL HEIGHT (FT) COMMENT 5865 5925 60 >75% 3 4 CUT BENCH 35 LF OF TRAIL CONSTRUCTED ACROSS STEEP 75% GRADIENT ROCKY SLOPES. CUT BENCH IS REASONABLE 5925 6045 120 65-75% 10 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK, WOOD LAG, OR WOOD CRIB):12 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD. ROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBY INSTALL SILT FENCE BELOW TRAIL TO CONTAIN DEBRIS THAT MAY FAIL DURING CONSTRUCTION. MINIMIZE CUT TO AVOID UNDERCUTTING UPSLOPE TREES. CLAYEY SOILS. 6045 6360 315 0-30% 14 5 PARTIAL BENCH TRAIL ROUTED UP BENCH AT 15% GRADE. 6360 6400 40 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH SWITCHBACK #517' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 20% CROSS-SLOPE PARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTION FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 6400 6440 40 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 6440 6460 20 0-30% 9 5 PARTIAL BENCH 6460 6565 105 30-40% 4 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 6565 6620 55 0-30% 3 5 PARTIAL BENCH 6620 6680 60 30-40% 3 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 6680 6715 35 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH SWITCHBACK #6 12' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPE PARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTION FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 6715 6750 35 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 6750 6850 100 30-40% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 6850 7030 180 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7030 7060 30 30-40% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7060 7090 30 30-40% 11 4.5 FILL BENCH SWITCHBACK #712' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 30% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT H, EST 4 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 4 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 7090 7120 30 30-40% 11 4.5 CUT BENCH 7120 7180 60 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7180 7215 35 40-50% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7215 7240 25 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH ROUTE TRAIL PAST FALLEN TREE. REMOVE ROOT WAD 7240 7420 180 50-65% 0 4 PARTIAL BENCH 7420 7455 35 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7455 7480 25 30-40% 9 4.5 FILL BENCH SWITCHBACK #813' RADIUS, 9% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FT H, EST 3 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 3 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 7480 7505 25 30-40% 9 4.5 CUT BENCH 7505 7580 75 30-40% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH VERY ROCKY GROUND: TREAD LIKELY TO BE SUPPORTED ON ROCK FILL BENCH 7580 7790 210 50-65% 7 4 PARTIAL BENCH 7790 7860 70 40-50% 9 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7860 7995 135 30-40% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7995 8080 85 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 8080 8140 60 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH SWITCHBACK #912' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 20% CROSS-SLOPE PARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTION FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER INSTALL BENCH AS DIRECTED AND PER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 8140 8180 40 0-30% 2 5 PARTIAL BENCH 8180 8290 110 40-50% 11 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 8290 8350 60 30-40% 3 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 2 TRAIL WRAPS AROUND ROCKY BEDROCK NOSE. LIKELY ROCK FILL CONSTRUCTION 8350 8380 30 50-65% 8 4 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 (N) ROCK FILL 30 LF X 3 FT HIGH X 4 FT W ABUNDANT ROCK EXPOSED IN CUT 8380 8465 85 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 8465 8500 35 40-50% 10 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 SWITCHBACK #108' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE BETWEEN TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 7 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 7 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 8500 8530 30 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 8530 8570 40 50-65% 7 4 PARTIAL BENCH 8570 8600 30 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 8600 8670 70 30-40% 0 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 8670 8710 40 40-50% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 8710 8770 60 50-65% 9 4 PARTIAL BENCH 8770 8800 30 40-50% 10 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 2.5 SWITCHBACK #118' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 40% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE AROUND TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 2.5 FT H, EST 6 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 3.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 8800 8820 20 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 8820 8885 65 50-65% 4 CUT BENCH 8885 8945 60 50-65% 4 PARTIAL BENCH 8945 8965 20 0-30% 5 PARTIAL BENCH 8965 8980 15 0-30% 9 5 FILL BENCH SWITCHBACK #1210' RADIUS, 19% TRAIL GRADE, 25% ROCKY RIDGE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 20 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FT H, EST 1 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 10+ LF CUT BENCH, 1.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 8980 8995 15 0-30% 9 5 CUT BENCH 8995 9120 125 50-65% 8 4 CUT BENCH 9120 9165 45 50-65% 10 4 RETAINING WALL ALLEN 4.4 SWITCHBACK #137' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 65% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 45 LF ALLEN BLOCK WALL, 4.6 FT H (MAX) COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FILL, EST 24 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 50+ LF CUT BENCH, 8.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 24 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 9165 9215 50 50-65% 10 4 CUT BENCH 9215 9325 110 50-65% 10 4 CUT BENCH 9325 9345 20 0-30% 10 5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 1.5 SWITCHBACK #149' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 30% ROCKY RIDGE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 25 LF FILL, 1.5 FT H (MAX.), EST 1.5 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 15+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 9345 9360 15 0-30% 10 5 CUT BENCH 9360 9370 10 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 9370 9475 105 50-65% 12 4 PARTIAL BENCH ROUTE TRAIL THROUGH AND AROUND SEVERAL GROUPS OF BAY TREES. TRAIL SHOULD BE LOCATED ABOVE THE SLOPE BREAK TO MINIMIZE CUTS. IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED THEN OUTER TRAIL EDGE MAY BE SUPPORTED ON A ROCK FILL BENCH. 9475 9540 65 50-65% 7 4 CUT BENCH 9540 9600 60 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 9600 9670 70 50-65% 7 4 CUT BENCH 9670 9700 30 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 9700 9735 35 40-50% 10 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 2.5 SWITCHBACK #158' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 40% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE AROUND TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 2.5 FT H, EST 3 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 20+ LF CUT BENCH, 3.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 9735 9755 20 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 9755 9880 125 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 9880 10195 315 0-30% 9 5 PARTIAL BENCH STA START STA END LENGTH (FT) SLOPE GRADIENT APPROX. TRAIL GRADIENT TRAIL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION WALL TYPE WALL HEIGHT (FT) COMMENT 10195 10230 35 0-30% 10 5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 SWITCHBACK #168' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE AROUND TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 7 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 10230 10260 30 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 10260 10425 165 40-50% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 10425 10495 70 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 10495 10515 20 50-65% 1 4 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 (N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG) 20 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREAD WALL TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 36 OAK 10515 10690 175 50-65% 9 4 PARTIAL BENCH 10690 10735 45 40-50% 12 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 10735 10770 35 40-50% 10 4.5 FILL BENCH 3 SWITCHBACK #178' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE AROUND TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 13 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 10770 10820 50 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 10820 10860 40 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 10860 10885 25 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 10885 10910 25 65-75% 9 4 RETAINING WALL WOOD LAG 2 (N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG) 25 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREAD WALL TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 36 OAK 10910 10985 75 65-75% 9 4 CUT BENCH 10985 11135 150 40-50% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11135 11200 65 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 11200 11240 40 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11240 11290 50 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11290 11390 100 0-30% 8 5 PARTIAL BENCH 11390 11440 50 4 BRIDGE BRIDGE 3 11440 11505 65 0-30% 8 5 PARTIAL BENCH 11505 11595 90 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 11595 11630 35 30-40% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11630 11660 30 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11660 11680 20 40-50% 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11680 11705 25 65-75% 7 4 CUT BENCH 11705 11785 80 >75% 9 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG) 80 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD 11785 11820 35 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 11820 11870 50 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 11870 11955 85 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 11955 11970 15 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 11970 11990 20 40-50% 14 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11990 12060 70 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12060 12160 100 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12160 12230 70 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12230 12280 50 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12280 12315 35 40-50% 0 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12315 12335 20 50-65% 0 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12335 12420 85 50-65% 6 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12420 12545 125 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12545 12570 25 50-65% 10 4 RETAINING WALL WOOD LAG 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG) 25 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD TO PROTECT UPSLOPE TREE 12570 12610 40 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12610 12705 95 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12705 12735 30 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12735 12745 10 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12745 12765 20 40-50% 7 4.5 BRIDGE 4 12765 12790 25 40-50% 0 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12790 12850 60 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12850 12875 25 50-65% 7 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12875 12960 85 50-65% 0 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12960 13190 230 50-65% 2 4 PARTIAL BENCH 13190 13225 35 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 13225 13280 55 40-50% 3 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13280 13345 65 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH LEANING 32 IN OAK - THE TREE IS AT HIGH RISK FOR FAILURE AND SHOULD BE CUT. IF THE TREE IS CUT THEN THE BETTER TRAIL ALIGNMENT IS BELOW. 13345 13490 145 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13490 13550 60 40-50% 12 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13550 13635 85 40-50% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13635 13670 35 40-50% 9 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13670 13690 20 50-65% 9 4 PARTIAL BENCH 13690 13765 75 50-65% 2 4 PARTIAL BENCH 13765 13835 70 40-50% 4 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13835 13925 90 40-50% 4 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13925 14060 135 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 14060 14165 105 30-40% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 14165 14290 125 40-50% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 14290 16007 1717 4 ROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSION ROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSION ͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͧ͟΅ͲͳͽͶ͑ͷ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳ͖ͫͧͦ͑͟͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"275 276 277 278 !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!(((((((((((((((((((((((((èèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèè èèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D D D D D D D D D D D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!")")")")")")")")")")")#0#0(E) FENCEQUARRY ROADSHALLOW DITCH(N) CLEAN 75 LF DITCHTO DRAIN TO CULVERT(N) 18" X 30' HDPE CULVERTINV 830.75INV 829.25(N) RED2 CY OF 12" ROCK(N) 5 FOOT WIDE TRAIL10% GRADE30F24O24O10O4B10B6O6O4O83583084083084583084083518333837.7831842832841836837835840834 838839833[ͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͥ͟͡΅ͲͺͽͶͲ͵͑;Ͳ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳͦͣͣͪ͟͢͠͠͡ΉͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"PRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅èèèè è èèèèèèèèèèèèèèè èèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèè#0#0WINERYDRIVEWAYOLD ROADSHOULDERSHALLOW DRAIN DITCHMAINTAIN DRAIN DIPACROSS TRAIL(N) ROAD TO TRAILCONVERSION36M18O18O6O4B20M145514651455146014551465145514601145821459.990510Feet[01020FeetLegendEO_OLD_ROADEDGE OF ROADDDFENCETOP OF FILLèèèèèDITCHESCARPMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!SWALE")POSTTREEWOOD RAT NESTSCLLIMIT OF GROUND DIS(N) EDGE OF TRAIL(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((N) ROCK ENERGY DISSIPATER(N) CULVERT(E) CONTOURINDXINT(N) CONTOURS!!INDEX!!INTQUARRY PARK TRAIL HEAD!©AC4.0WINERY ROAD TRAIL HEAD!©BC4.0279 280 281 282 283 284 GENERAL NOTES 1) PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF: a) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 0330 DISTEL CIRCLE LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 2) DEFINITIONS a) THE "CITY" SHALL BE CITY OF SARATOGA. b) THE “ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST” SHALL BE TIMOTHY C. BEST. c) THE “CIVIL ENGINEER” SHALL BE WATERWAYS CONSULTING d) THE “STRUCTURAL ENGINEER” SHALL BE MAYONE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. e) THE “GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER” SHALL BE HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. f) THE “BRIDGE MANUFACTURER” SHALL BE THE SUPPLIER OF THE PREFABRICATED BRIDGE TRUSS ASSEMBLIES SELECTED BY THE MCOSD. g) THE "CONTRACTOR" SHALL BE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SELECTED BY THE MCOSD TO PERFORM THE WORK DESCRIBED HEREIN. h) ON THESE PLANS “ENGINEER” REFERS TO “ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST”, OR THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. THE ENGINEER HAS BEEN RETAINED BY THE DISTRICT AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE CONTRACTOR. 3) CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING ANY REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT'S GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT. 4) IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO BE FULLY INFORMED OF AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL LAWS, ORDINANCES, CODES, REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS WHICH IN ANY MANNER AFFECT THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, THOSE ENGAGED OR EMPLOYED IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION. 5) ALL CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF 2016 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, APPLICABLE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDNANCES, CODES, AND REQUIREMENTS, AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 1600 AGREEMENT. ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PERMITS AND PLANS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO ENABLE THE ENGINEER TO ADDRESS THE NEED FOR PLAN MODIFICATIONS. 6) THE CONTRACTOR, AT CONTRACTOR'S SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL PROVIDE, ALL MATERIALS, LABOR AND EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF ALL ITEMS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DEVIATION FROM THESE PLANS AND ASSOCIATED RISK AND EXPENSE. 7) CULTURAL RESOURCES: IN THE EVENT THAT HUMAN REMAINS AND/OR CULTURAL MATERIALS ARE FOUND, ALL PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUCTION SHALL CEASE WITHIN A 100-FOOT RADIUS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7050.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, AND SECTION 5097.94 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NOTIFY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CORONER IMMEDIATELY. 8) THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC REPORT PREPARED BY TIMOTHY C. BEST AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PLANS. EXAMINATION OF JOB SITE, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS WITH CONDITIONS AT THE SITE AND SHALL VERIFY EXISTING GRADES, ELEVATIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER AND SHALL BE RESOLVED BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. ANY DEVIATION, SUBSTITUTION OR ALTERATION TO THE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT FIELD CONDITIONS ARE NOT AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR MUST MAKE REVISIONS AND/OR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER/OWNER PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION. 2) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE CAREFULLY THE PROJECT AREA, THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE SUBMISSION OF A BID SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS INVESTIGATED AND IS SATISFIED AS TO THE CONDITIONS TO BE ENCOUNTERED, AS TO THE CHARACTER, QUALITY, AND SCOPE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED, THE QUANTITIES OF MATERIALS TO BE FURNISHED AND AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3) IN THE EVENT THAT ANY UNUSUAL CONDITIONS NOT COVERED BY THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING THE WORK, THE ENGINEER SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED FOR DIRECTIONS. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND FIELD CONDITIONS. 4) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS MAY DIFFER FROM THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL SITE. DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK, IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO EVALUATE THE SITE IN RELATION TO THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DISTRICT AND THE ENGINEER. 5) THE CONTRACTOR MUST ATTEND A PRE-BID MEETING WITH THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED WORK. A PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS SO THE CONTRACTOR MAY ASK QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE WORK AND TO MAKE SURE THE CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDS THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. 6) THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. THE PURPOSE OF THESE MEETINGS IS TO ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR TO ASK QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE WORK AND TO MAKE SURE THE CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDS THE SCOPE OF WORK, PERMIT CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. 7) AT ALL TIMES DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, COPIES OF THE APPROVED FINAL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND PERMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THE CONSTRUCTION JOB SITE (WHERE SUCH COPIES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW) AND ALL PERSONS INVOLVED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BRIEFED ON THE CONTENT AND MEANING OF EACH PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. MAPPING 1) TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING PROVIDED BY: a) GROUND SURVEY BRIDGE: WATERWAYS CONSULTING, INC. SURVEY DATES VARY (2018) b) GROUND SURVEY TRAIL HEADS: TIMOTHY C. BEST, INC. SURVEY DATES VARY (2018) c) BASE MAP: DERIVED FROM 2014 SANTA CLARA COUNTY BARE EARTH LIDAR CONTOURS ON BASE MAP ARE APPROXIMATE 2) ELEVATION DATUM: GROUND BASED MAPS ARE BASED ON INDIVIDUAL ASSUMED LOCAL DATUM AERIAL LIDAR MAPPING: NAVD88 BASIS OF BEARINGS: NAD83 CALIFORNIA STATE PLANES, ZONE III 3) ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. CONTOUR INTERVAL VARIES. 4) THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. PROPERTY LINES, IF SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE, PENDING THE RESULTS OF A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY. 5) THE CITY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION OF ALL PROPERTY LINES AND EASEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THAT PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS ARE LOCATED ON CITY OWNED LANDS OR ARE COORDINATED WITH OWNERS AND APPROPRIATE PERMISSIONS ARE GRANTED FOR THE WORK. 6) CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING AND LAYOUT, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 7) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF ALL SURVEY MONUMENTS OR PROPERTY CORNERS. DISTURBED MONUMENTS SHALL BE RESTORED BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED 8) MAINTAIN A CURRENT, COMPLETE, AND ACCURATE RECORD OF ALL AS-BUILT DEVIATIONS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE ENGINEER OF RECORD WITH A BASIS FOR THE PREPARATION OF RECORD DRAWINGS. 9) TREE DIMENSIONS: ONLY TREES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 8” DBF WITHIN OR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE TRAIL FOOT PRINT ARE MAPPED. THE MAPPING OF SMALLER TREES IS INCOMPLETE. TRUNK DIAMETERS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. TREE TRUNK DIMENSIONS MAY BE SHOWN OUT-OF-SCALE FOR PLOTTING CLARITY. CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN DESIGNING NEAR TREE TRUNKS. THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON FIELD ACCURACY, DRAFTING ACCURACY, MEDIUM STRETCH AS WELL AS THE "SPREAD" OR "LEANING" OF TREES. REQUEST ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC DETAIL WHERE CLOSE TOLERANCES ARE ANTICIPATED. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 1) CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (1-800-642-2444) TO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 2) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, CONTACT ALL UTILITIES COMPANIES WITH REGARD TO WORKING OVER, UNDER, OR AROUND EXISTING FACILITIES AND TO OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE FACILITIES. 3) EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE COMPILED FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY AGENCIES AND FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTS TO ABOVE GROUND FEATURES READILY VISIBLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT ONLY ACTUAL EXCAVATION WILL REVEAL THE DIMENSIONS, SIZES, MATERIALS, LOCATIONS, AND DEPTH OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 4) THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION AND/OR PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED PIPING, UTILITIES, TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT (BOTH ABOVE GROUND AND BELOW GROUND), STRUCTURES, AND ALL OTHER EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE UTILITIES, ANY RESULTING DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED AT CONTRACTOR'S COST. 5) PRIOR TO COMMENCING FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION, DISCOVER OR VERIFY THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS, SIZES, MATERIALS, LOCATIONS, AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND POTHOLE THOSE AREAS WHERE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE LIKELY OR DATA IS OTHERWISE INCOMPLETE. 6) TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7) UPON LEARNING OF THE EXISTENCE AND/OR LOCATIONS OF ANY UNDERGROUND FACILITIES NOT SHOWN OR SHOWN INACCURATELY ON THE PLANS OR NOT PROPERLY MARKED BY THE UTILITY OWNER, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE UTILITY OWNER AND THE CITY BY TELEPHONE AND IN WRITING. 8) UTILITY RELOCATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT FACILITIES WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TRAIL LAYOUT 1) NEW TRAIL, BRIDGES AND CULVERTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE MADE BASED ON ONSITE CONDITIONS. CONTACT TIMOTHY BEST, CEG (831-425-5832) FOR TRAIL, BRIDGE AND CULVERT LOCATIONS. 2) FINAL FLAGGED TRAIL ALIGNMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ANY EARTHWORK. 3) NEW TRAIL SHALL BE LAID OUT TO CONFORM TO NATURAL TERRAIN TO CREATE AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING ALIGNMENT. THE ALIGNMENT SHOULD AVOID LONG STRAIGHT REACHES. THE ALIGNMENT SHOULD INCORPORATE NATURAL TERRAIN FEATURES TO FORM REQUIRED REVERSE GRADES DIPS TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. 4) TRAIL SHALL BE LAID OUT AND CONSTRUCTED TO INCORPORATE BROAD REVERSE GRADE DIPS. TO THESE EXTEND FEASIBLE THESE SHOULD BE INCORPORATE INTO THE TRAIL DESIGN RATHER THAN CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE FACT. SEE TRAIL DRAINAGE AND TYPICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAXIMUM DIP SPACING 5) ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE ALIGNMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THAT WORK. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 1) DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS. 2) THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIES TO ENSURE THAT STORM WATER POLLUTION IS PREVENTED SHALL BE EMPLOYED: a) LIMIT THE EXTENT OF TRAIL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT ANY GIVEN TIME b) INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCES AS PRESCRIBED ON PLANS c) INSTALL PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS TRAIL CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INCLUDE: d) INSTALL FREQUENT REVERSE GRADE DIPS AT ROUGHLY 100 TO 150 FOOT SPACINGS. e) EXPOSED MINERAL SOILS OUTSIDE OF THE TRAIL RUNNING SURFACE GREATER THAN 50 SQUARE FEET (SF) AND WITH EXPOSED SLOPE DISTANCE EXCEEDING 10 FEET AND WITH LESS THAN 80% GROUND COVERAGE OF NATURAL VEGETATION SHALL BE MULCHED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR SHORT-TERM SHEET AND RILL EROSION. MULCH USING NATIVE DUFF AND SLASH. 3) WINTER CONSTRUCTION a) ANY GRADING FOR THE PROJECT AFTER OCTOBER 1 SHALL BE COMPLETED IN DRY WEATHER OR LOW RAINFALL (LESS THAN ½ INCH PER 24 HOUR PERIOD). b) A MINIMUM OF 200 LINEAR FEET OF STRAW WATTLE AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT STAGING AREA OR ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. c) IN THE EVENT OF 25 PERCENT CHANCE OF FORECAST INCLEMENT WEATHER (GREATER THAN ½ INCH OF RAINFALL IN 24 HOUR PERIOD), TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (E.G. STRAW WATTLES, SILT FENCE, EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS, ETC) SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROTECT THE SECTION OF TRAIL THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. INSPECTIONS 1) ANY TESTS, INSPECTIONS, SPECIAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING CODES, LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENTS, OR THESE PLANS, SHALL BE DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT INSPECTION COMPANY. JOB SITE VISITS BY THE ENGINEER DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL INSPECTION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE REQUIRED TESTS AND INSPECTIONS ARE PERFORMED. 2) ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO OBSERVATION, TESTING AND APPROVAL BY DISTRICT, ENGINEER, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, IN ADDITION TO INSPECTIONS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY AGENCIES. 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER A MINIMUM OF 7 DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND A MINIMUM OF 4 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL ALSO BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST FOUR (4) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO ANY SITE CLEARING OR GRADING SO THAT THE WORK IN THE FIELD CAN BE COORDINATED WITH THE GRADING CONTRACTOR, AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR TESTING AND OBSERVATION CAN BE MADE. THE PROJECT ENGINEER (ENGINEER) SHALL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW PROJECT DRAWINGS WITH THE CONTRACTOR DURING THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING TO EVALUATE IF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INTERPRETED. THE ENGINEER SHALL ALSO PROVIDE KEYWAY EXCAVATION AND EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS. THIS ALLOWS THE ENGINEER TO CONFIRM ANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS AND EVALUATE CONFORMANCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROJECT DRAWINGS. IF THE ENGINEER IS NOT PROVIDED THIS OPPORTUNITY THEY ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISINTERPRETATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 4) REGULATORY AGENCIES MAY REQUIRE A FINAL GRADING COMPLIANCE LETTER. WE CAN ONLY OFFER THIS LETTER IF WE ARE CALLED TO THE SITE TO OBSERVE AND TEST, AS NECESSARY, ANY GRADING AND EXCAVATION OPERATIONS FROM THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. WE CANNOT PREPARE A LETTER IF WE ARE NOT AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY OF OBSERVATION FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE GRADING OPERATION. THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE MADE AWARE OF THIS AND EARTHWORK TESTING AND OBSERVATION MUST BE SCHEDULED ACCORDINGLY. PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE. 5) IF UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION, OR IF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL DIFFER FROM THAT PLANNED AT THIS TIME, THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED SO THAT SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE GIVEN. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SCHEDULE 1) IN ADDITION TO OBSERVATIONS OF WORK, ENGINEER WILL FLAG THE LOCATION OF PROPOSED FEATURES. 2) REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS BY ENGINEER SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO: a) FINAL TRAIL ALIGNMENT, TRAIL ROUGH AND FINAL GRADING, DRAINAGE FEATURE LOCATIONS (INCLUDING DRAIN DIPS, KNICKS, ETC) b) LIMITS OF GRADING, EXCAVATION AND SPOIL PLACEMENT c) RETAINING WALL LOCATIONS AND EXCAVATIONS d) LIMITS OF PROPOSED BORROW SITES e) BRIDGE LOCATION, FOUNDATION EXCAVATION (FOOTING INSPECTION), STEEL REINFORCEMENT PLACEMEN, CONCRETE PLACEMENT, BRIDGE INSTALLATION f) BMP'S, INCLUDING DIVERSION AND DEWATERING SYSTEMS, PRIOR TO SITE DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE 1) PROJECT SCHEDULE: PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, SUBMIT TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL A DETAILED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. DO NOT BEGIN ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK UNTIL THE PROJECT SCHEDULE AND WORK PLAN IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH THE ENGINEER SO THAT THE QUALITY OF WORK CAN BE CHECKED FOR APPROVAL. PURSUE WORK IN A CONTINUOUS AND DILIGENT MANNER TO ENSURE A TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 2) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN, PERMITTING, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES DEEMED NECESSARY. SAFETY 1) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GENERAL SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO PERTINENT SAFETY REGULATIONS AND CODES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING, INSTALLING, AND MAINTAINING ALL WARNING SIGNS AND DEVICES NECESSARY TO SAFEGUARD THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE WORK, AND PROVIDE FOR THE PROPER AND SAFE ROUTING OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF OSHA IN THE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. 2) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTION LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. NEITHER THE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF CONSULTANT NOR THE PRESENCE OF CONSULTANT OR HIS OR HER EMPLOYEES OR SUB-CONSULTANTS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONTRACTORS OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCE, TECHNIQUES OR PROCEDURES NECESSARY FOR PERFORMING, SUPERINTENDING OR COORDINATING ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE HEALTH OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS OF ANY REGULATORY AGENCY OR OF STATE LAW. 3) CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 4) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS OF THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PERTAINING TO EXCAVATION AND TRENCHES THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 8, SUBCHAPTER 4 CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS, ARTICLE 6 EXCAVATION. STAGING AND ACCESS 1) AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS, ROUTES, AND STAGING AREAS ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND STAGING AREAS WILL BE RESTRICTED TO EXISTING ROADS AND PREVIOUSLY CLEARED TURNOUTS OR LANDINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. 2) IMPACTS TO THE ACCESS ROUTES MUST BE MINIMIZED AND DISTURBANCE ALONG THE ACCESS ROUTE SHALL BE RESTORED TO PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS UPON PROJECT COMPLETION. 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CAREFULLY PRESERVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY BY CONFINING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WORK. CONSTRUCTION WORK OR EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED WORK AREA BOUNDARY WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT. 4) ACCESS OVER EXISTING ROADS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. IF THROUGH ACCESS CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, A SCHEDULE FOR CLOSURE MUST BE APPROVED BY A CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. 5) NO AREA WITHIN THE CONTRACT LIMITS IS AVAILABLE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CONTRACTOR. USE OF CONTRACTOR’S WORK AREAS AND ANY MOBILIZATION AREAS SHALL BE AT CONTRACTOR’S OWN RISK, AND CITY SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT LOCATED WITHIN SUCH AREAS. HOUSEKEEPING 1) MAINTAIN THE SITE IN A NEAT AND ORDERLY MANNER THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. STORE ALL MATERIALS WITHIN APPROVED STAGING AREAS. 2) CONSTRUCTION WATER IS AVAILABLE AT xxxxx 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN GOOD CONSTRUCTION SITE HOUSEKEEPING CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (E.G., CLEAN UP ALL LEAKS, DRIPS, AND OTHER SPILLS IMMEDIATELY; KEEP MATERIALS COVERED AND OUT OF THE RAIN (INCLUDING COVERING EXPOSED PILES OF SOIL AND WASTES); DISPOSE OF ALL WASTES PROPERLY, PLACE TRASH RECEPTACLES ON SITE FOR THAT PURPOSE, COVER OPEN TRASH RECEPTACLES DURING WET WEATHER, REMOVE ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FROM THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN ALL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AND TO INSPECT THEM FREQUENTLY FOR LEAKS. 4) EQUIPMENT WASHING, REFUELING, AND/OR SERVICING SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE EXCEPT WITH APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID FUEL SPILLS, AT LEAST 100 FEET AWAY FROM STREAM CHANNELS, FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 5) PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED OFFSITE. 6) SWEEP UP ANY SPILLED DRY MATERIALS IMMEDIATELY. USE ONLY WATER FOR DUST CONTROL. 7. CLEAN UP ANY SPILLS ON A DIRT AREA BY DIGGING UP AND PROPERLY DISPOSING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL AT AN APPROPRIATE FACILITY. ͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͦͦ͟ͶͿͶͲͽ͑Ϳ΅Ͷ΄͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳ͖ͫͧͦ͑͟͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"285 Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Project Biological Resources Report C-4 H. T. Harvey & Associates May 2, 2019 trees, buildings, or bridge structures that are used for roosting (Zeiner et al. 1990; Ferguson and Azerrad 2004). Coastal colonies commonly roost in deep crevices in rocky outcroppings, in buildings, under bridges, and in the crevices, hollows, and exfoliating bark of trees. Night roosts often occur in open buildings, porches, garages, highway bridges, and mines. Colonies can range in size from a few individuals to over a hundred (Barbour and Davis 1969), and they usually consist of at least 20 individuals (Wilson and Ruff 1999). Pallid bats typically winter in canyon bottoms and riparian areas. After mating during the late fall and winter, females leave to form maternity colonies, often on ridge tops or other warmer locales (Johnston et al. 2006). Pallid bat roosts are very susceptible to human disturbance. The pallid bat occurs sporadically throughout open areas and along roads of the Pacific coastal regions, including the Santa Cruz Mountains. This species has been extirpated as a breeder from urban areas close to the Bay, but may still breed in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Potentially suitable roosting habitat is present in the study area in the form of small to moderate cavities in trees. 1113869.1 286 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE SARATOGA TO SANBORN TRAIL PLAN AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The City of Saratoga City Council finds and determines as follows with respect to the project described below and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding that project. I.Project Summary The City of Saratoga City Council has reviewed the Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan (also known as the Quarry Park-Sanborn Connector Trail) proposed by the City Department of Public Works shown in Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference. This Project would construct an approximately 3 mile public recreational trail connection from Saratoga Quarry Park to Sanborn County Park in western Santa Clara County (“connector trail”) or (“trail”). The proposed trail would occur on City-owned and privately-owned land in Saratoga and Santa Clara County. The trail is envisioned to eventually connect to existing County trails within Sanborn County Park and to serve as part of a trail system linking trails in Saratoga to the Skyline- to-the-Sea Trail to form a Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail. The Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail is included as a proposed trail in the City of Saratoga General Plan in Circulation and Scenic Highway Element and also in Open Space and Conservation Element. The proposed alignment for the trail was selected based on a feasibility study conducted in May 2015 and based on input from the City’s Trails Advisory Committee, the affected private landowner (San Jose Water Company), the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department staff, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District staff. The proposed trail would emphasize the Project site’s natural features, connections to adjacent open space, and opportunities for hiking and horse-back riding. The foregoing is collectively described as the “Project” in this Resolution. II.Environmental Review 1. An Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the Project by the City of Saratoga, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and other applicable requirements. 287 2 2. The IS and a notice of intent to adopt a MND were duly noticed and circulated for a 30-day public review period from May 17 – June 17, 2019 and was revised in response to public comments. 3. All interested parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on the Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan project before the City Council on July 3, 2019. 4. The IS and MND represents the City’s independent judgment and analysis. 5. On July 3, 2019 the City Council considered the Project, at a duly noticed public hearing during which opportunity was given to address the adequacy of the MND. All comments on the IS and MND raised during the public and agency comment period and during the Council’s consideration of the Project were considered by the City Council. 6. The City Council was presented with and/or had the opportunity to review all of the information in the administrative record; and 7. After the conclusion of public testimony at the July 3, 2019 public hearing, the City Council considered all oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for adoption of the MND and reviewed and considered the information in the IS and MND, public and agency comments on the IS and MND, the administrative record, and the staff report for completeness and compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and any and all other applicable requirements. 8. The Project has been the subject of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15070 and following of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The MND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and any and all other applicable requirements. The City Council has considered the information contained in the MND and the record in considering the Project and related actions. 9. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Public Works and are maintained by the Director of that Department. 10. Mitigation measures as listed in the MND have been incorporated in the conditions of approval for the Project, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan dated June 25, 2019 (“MMRP”), which has been attached to this Resolution, has been prepared for the Project, and the City Council has reviewed the MMRP, finds it legally adequate, and in order to ensure compliance hereby adopts said MMRP for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the Project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. 288 3 11.Pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds on the basis of, and after review of, the whole record before it (including the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, any and all comments received, and in light of expert and other evidence submitted), that there is no credible, substantial evidence that the Project as revised and mitigated may have a significant effect on the environment as to any issue raised. III.Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration After careful consideration of the matter, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, which was presented to the City Council on July 3, 2019 and is on file with the City Public Works Department. IV. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP and directs the Public Works Director to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures required in the Project as specified in the MMRP to mitigate significant environmental effects, as described in the MND. V. Adoption of the Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan The City Council hereby adopts the Saratoga to Sanborn Trail Plan attached to the July 3, 2019 staff report accompanying this resolution and directs staff to proceed with final design and construction of the improvements shown on the Plan and to take such other actions as may be required to implement the Plan and MMRP. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, this 3rd day of July, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Manny Cappello, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk 1129607.3 289 ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅ʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ΄ͲͿ΅Ͳ͑ʹͽͲͲ͑ʹΆͿ΅Ί͑͝ʹͲͽͺͷͿͺͲ·ͺʹͺͿͺ΅Ί͑;ͲͽʹͲ΅ͺͿ͑;ͲPROJECT SITESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS User CommunityQUARRYPARKSAN BORN PARKWINERYCONGRESSSPRINGSROADSUBJECT SITESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (HongKong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityͻͶʹ΅͑͵Ͷ΄ʹͺ΅ͺͿ͠΄ʹͶ͑΅Ͷ͑ ΄Ͷ͵͑ ΅Ͳͺͽ͑ ͺͿʹͽΆ͵Ͷ΄͑ ΅Ͷ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͑ ͷ͑ ͤ͑ ;ͺͽͶ΄͑ ͷ͑ͶʹͶͲ΅ͺͿͲͽ͑ ΅Ͳͺͽ͑ ͷ͑ Ͷ͵Ͷ΄΅ͺͲͿ͑ ͲͿ͵͑ ͶΆͶ΄΅ͺͲͿ͑ Ά΄Ͷ͑͟ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅ͶͽΊ͑ͣͨ͑͟;ͺͽͶ΄͑Έͺͽͽ͑ͳͶ͑ͿͶΈ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͑Ͳ΅͑ͥ͑΅͑ͦ͑ͷ΅͑Έͺ͵΅ͬ͑ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅ͶͽΊ͑ͤ͑͟͡;ͺͽͶ΄͑Έͺͽͽ͑ͳͶ͑Ά΅Ͷ͵͑ͲͽͿ͑ͲͿ͑ͶΉͺ΅ͺͿ͑ͽ͵͑·ͶΈͿ͑Ͳ͵͑͟΅ͶͶ͑Έͺͽͽ͑ͳͶ͑ͷΆ͑ΈͲ΅ͶʹΆ΄Ͷ͑ʹ΄΄ͺͿ΄͑͝ ͥ͑ͿͶΈ͑ ΅Ͳͺͽ͑ ͳͺ͵Ͷ΄͑ ͙ͣ͑͡ ΅͑ ͨ͑͡ ͽͺͿͶͲ͑ ͷͶͶ΅͑ ͶͲʹ͚͑͟ ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅ͶͽΊ͑ ͪͦͦ͑ͽͺͿͶͲ͑ͷͶͶ΅͑ͷ͑ͽΈ͙͑ͭ͑ͤ͑ͷ΅͑ͺ͚͑Ͷ΅ͲͺͿͺͿ͑ΈͲͽͽ΄͑ ͲͿ͵͑ͤͧͦ͑ͽͺͿͶͲ͑ͷͶͶ΅͑ͷ͑ʹͼ͑ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳΆ΅΅Ͷ΄΄͑ͲͶ͑΄Ͷ͵͑͑͟ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅΄͑͑ʹͽͺͶͿ΅͑ʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑Άͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄͑ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͑͡͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑Ͷ;;Ͳ͑ͳΆͼͲͽ΅Ͷ͑͝Ͷ͙͚͑ͥͩ͑ͩͧͩͣͨͥ͑͢͡͞ΖΓΦΣΜΙΒΝΥΖΣͱΤΒΣΒΥΠΘΒ͟ΔΒ͟ΦΤ͑͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶͺͿ͑Ͷͽͺ΄΅͑͑ͽͲͿ͑ͶͲͶ͑΅ͺ;΅Ί͑ʹ͑ͳͶ΄΅͑͝ʹͶ͑ͣ͑͢͡͡ʹͽΆ;ͳͺͲ͑΄΅ͶͶ΅͑΄ͲͿ΅Ͳ͑ʹΆ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͧ͑͡͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑΅ͺ;͑ͳͶ΄΅͙͑ΥΚΞΓΖΤΥͱΔΠΒΤΥΘΖΠ͟ΔΠΞ͚͙͚͙͚͑ͩͤ͑ͥͣͦͦͩͤͣ͑ͩͤ͑ͤͤͣ͑ͨͨͪ͑͑͢͢͢͞ʹͶͽͽ͑͑ʹͺ·ͺͽ͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶ͑ΈͲ΅ͶΈͲΊ΄͑ʹͿ΄Άͽ΅ͺͿ͑͝ͺͿʹ͑ͦͪ͟͡Ͳ͑΄Έͺͷ΅͑΄΅ͶͶ΅͑΄ͲͿ΅Ͳ͑ʹΆ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͧ͑͡͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑;Ͳ΅΅͑ΈͶͽ͵΄͑͝Ͷ͙͚͙͚͑ͩͤ͑ͥͣͪͣͥͩ͑ͩͤ͑ͦͧͧͩͥͩͧ͑͢͢͢͞͞ʹͶͽͽ͑͑Ͷ΅ͶʹͿͺʹͲͽ͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶ͑Ͳ͑͝ͼͲ΄ΆͿͺʹ͑ͲͿ͵͑Ͳ΄΄ʹͺͲ΅Ͷ΄͑ͧ͑͢͢ͶͲ΄΅͑ͽͲͼͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ͑ΈͲ΅΄Ϳ·ͺͽͽͶ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨͧ͑͑͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑ͻͿ͑ͼͲ΄ΆͿͺʹ͙͚͙͚͑ͩͤ͑ͨͣͣͥͨͦ͑ͩͤ͑ͣͥͨͦͥͧͧ͑͢͢͢͞͞ʹͶͽͽ͑͑΄΅Άʹ΅ΆͲͽ͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶ͑;ͲΊͿͶ͑΄΅Άʹ΅ΆͲͽ͑ͶͿͺͿͶͶͺͿ͑͝ͺͿʹ͑ͩͨ͟͢͞ͳ͑Ͷͽ͑͵Ͳ͵͑΄΅ͶͶ΅͑;Ϳ΅ͶͶΊ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͧ͑͡͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑΄΅Ͷ·Ͷ͑;ͲΊͿͶ͙͚͙͚͑ͩͤ͑ͤͨͣͥͥͦͦ͑͑͑ͩͤ͑ͥͣͩͦͨͪ͑͢͢͞͡͞ʹͶͽͽ͑͑ͽͲͿ͵΄ʹͲͶ͑ͽͲͿͿͶ͑ͽͲʹͶΈͼ΄͑ͧͣͦ͑͢΄Ͳ΅΅Άʹͼ͑Ͳ·ͶͿΆͶ͑͝΄Άͺ΅Ͷ͑ͤ͑͡͡ͳͶͼͶͽͶΊ͑͝ʹͲͽͺͷͿͺͲ͑ͪͥͨͪ͑͡ʹͿ΅Ͳʹ΅ͫ͑ͻͶ΄΄Ͷ͑ͻͿͶ΄͑ͻͻͿͶ΄ͱͽͲʹͶΈͼ΄͟ʹ;͙͚͑ͦͩͥͩͤͩͦ͑͢͢͡͞ͶΉ΅͑ͤͤͤͧ͑͑͟ͳͺͽͺ΄΅͑͑͑͑͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑;ͲͿΆͷͲʹ΅ΆͶ͑͑΄ͶͶ΅͑ͺͿ͵ͶΉ͑͑΄ͶͶ΅͑΅ͺ΅ͽͶ͑ʹ͑͢͟͡ ΅ͺ΅ͽͶ͑΄ͶͶ΅͑͑ʹͣ͑͟͡ʹͣ͑͟͢ʹͣͣ͑͟ʹͣͤ͑͟ʹͣͥ͑͟ʹͣͦ͑͟ʹͣͧ͑͟ʹͤ͑͟͢ʹͤͣ͑͟ʹͤͤ͑͟ʹͥ͑͟͡ʹͦ͑͟͡ʹͦ͑͟͢ʹͦͣ͑͟ʹͦͤ͑͟ʹͦͥ͑͟ʹͦͦ͑͟΄͑͢΄ͣ͑΄ͤ͑͑·Ͷ·ͺͶΈ͑;Ͳ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑͑͢ͷ͑ͦ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͣ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͤ͑ͷ͑ͦ΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͥ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͦ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑΅ͲͳͽͶ͑ͷ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑͑͢΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑ͣ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑ͤ͑΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑ͽͲͿ΄͑΅ͲͺͽͶͲ͵͑΄ͶͶ΅΄͑͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑͑͢ͷ͑ͦ͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑ͣ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑ͤ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑ͥ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ΄͑ͦ͑ͷ͑ͦ͑ͶͿͶͲͽ͑Ϳ΅Ͷ΄͑΄΅Άʹ΅ΆͲͽ͑΄ͶͶ΅΄͑ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅Ͷ͑ͶͲ΅͑Έͼ͑ΆͲͿ΅ͺ΅ͺͶ΄͑ͺͽͽ΄ͽͶ͑Ͳ͵ͺͶͿ΅͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͽͶͿ΅͑ͷ΅͑ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑Ͳ΅ͺͲͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ʹΆ΅͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ʹͼ͑ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑Ͷ΅ͲͺͿͺͿ͑ΈͲͽͽ͑Ͳ͵͑΅͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͳͺ͵Ͷ͑ ΅΅Ͳͽ͖͖͑͑ͤ͑͡͞͡ ͤ͑͡ ͣͧͧ͑͝͡ ͤ͑͡ ͦͦ͑͑͑ ͑ ͖͖ͣͩͥͦ͑ͤ͑͑ͥ͑͝͡͞͡ ͤ͑͢͡ ͦͦ͑͢͝͡ ͨͦ͑ ͖͖ͧ͑͑͑͑ͨͨ͑ͥ͑͑ͦ͑͢͡͝͡͡͞͡ ͦͦ͑ ͤͦ͑͝͡͡ ͪͦ͑͢ ͖͖ͤ͑͑͑͑ͤͪ͑ͦ͑͑ͧͦ͑͑ͣͧͨ͑͢͡͝͡͡͡͞͝͡ ͣ͑͢͝͡͡ ͦ͑͡ ͤ͑͢͡ ͑ ͑ ͖͖ͥͦ͑ͧͦ͑͑ͨͦ͑͝͡͡͞ ͑͑ͨͨ͑͡ ͨ͑͡ ͣͦͦ͑ ͑ ͑ ͖ͪͦ͑ͯͨͦ͑͑͑ͪͦ͑͑ͦͨ͑͢͝͡͡ ͑ ͑ ͧͧͦ͑Ϳ͠Ͳ͑͑͑͑͑͑ͨͦ͑͢͢͝ ͨͦ͑͢ ͩ͑͢͡͡΅΅Ͳͽ͑ͣͦ͑͢ ͤͤͦ͑͢͡͝ ͣͤͧͦ͑͝ ͤͧͦ͑ͪͦͦ͑ ͨͦ͑͢͢͝ ͨͦ͑͢ ͧͣͦ͑͑͢͢͝ʹΆ΅ͫ͑͑͑͑ͣͣ͑͝͡͡ʹΊ͑ͷͺͽͽͫ͑͑ ͑ ͑ ͣͣ͑͝͡͡ʹΊ͑ͺ;΅͑ʹͼ͑͑ ͑ ί͑͑͢͡͡ʹΊ͑͑;ͲΉͺ;Ά;͑ͷͺͽͽͫ͑͑͑ͭ͑ͧ͑ͷͶͶ΅͑͵ͶͶ͑;ͲΉͺ;Ά;͑ʹΆ΅ͫ͑͑ͭ͑ͧ͑ͷͶͶ΅͑ͺ͑͵ͺ΄΅ΆͳͶ͵͑ͲͶͲͫ͑͑ͦͦ͑͟ͲʹͶ΄͑͑Ϳ΅Ͷͫ͑ͶΉʹͲ·Ͳ΅ͺͿ͑·ͽΆ;Ͷ΄͑ͲͶ͑ͲΉͺ;Ͳ΅Ͷ͑ͲͿ͵͑;ͲΊ͑͵ͺͷͷͶ͑ͳͲ΄Ͷ͵͑Ϳ͑ʹͿ͵ͺ΅ͺͿ΄͑ͶͿʹΆͿ΅ͶͶ͵͑͵ΆͺͿ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͑͑͟ͲͳͳͶ·ͺͲ΅ͺͿ΄͑͑Ͳͳ͑ ͲͶͲ΅Ͷ͑ͳͲ΄Ͷ͑ʹͼ͑Ͳ͑ Ͳͽ͵Ͷ͑ʹͳ͑ ʹΆ΅͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ʹ΅͑ ʹͶͿ΅Ͷ͑ʹΆͽ·͑ ʹΆͽ·Ͷ΅͑͑ʹΊ͑ ʹΆͳͺʹ͑ΊͲ͵͙͑Ͷ͚͑ ͶΉͺ΄΅ͺͿ͑Ͷ·͑ ͶͽͶ·Ͳ΅ͺͿ͑Ͷ΄΅͑ Ͷ΄΅ͺ;Ͳ΅Ͷ͑ͷ͑ ͷͺ͑ͷͳ͑ ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ͷͽ͑ ͷͽΈ͑ͽͺͿͶ͑ͷ΅͑ ͷ΅͑͑ ΆͿ͵͑ͺͿ͑ ͺͿʹ͑ͺͿ·͑ ͺͿ·Ͷ΅͑ͽͷ͑ ͽͺͿͲ͑ͷ΅͑ͽΈ͵͑ ͽͲͶ͑Έ͵Ί͑͵Ͷͳͺ΄͑;͑ ;Ͳ͵ͿͶ͑Ϳ΅΄͑ Ϳ΅͑΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ͙͑Ϳ͚͑ ͿͶΈ͑ ͑͑ Ͳͼ͑ͳ͑ Ͳ΅ͺͲͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑ͷͳ͑ ʹͼ͑ͷͺͽͽ͑ͳͶͿʹ͑͵͑ ͽͽͺͿ͑͵ͺ͑Ͷ͵͑ ʹͼ͑ͶͿͶΊ͑͵ͺ΄΄ͺͲ΅͑͑ Ͷ͵Έ͵͑΄͑ ʹͼ͑΄ͽͶ͑΅Ͷʹ΅ͺͿ͑Έ͑ Ͷ΅ͲͺͿͺͿ͑ΈͲͽͽ͑΅ʹ͑ ΅͑ͷ͑ʹΆ΅͑͑΅Ͷ͑ ΅Ͷ͑ͷ͑΄ͽͶ͑΅Ί͑ ΅ΊͺʹͲͽ͑΄΅Ͳ͑ ΄΅Ͳ΅ͺͿ͑΄ͼ͑ ΄ͺͼͶ͑͑͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͑Ϳ΅Ͳ΅ͺͿ΄͑͵Ͷ΅Ͳͺͽ͑ʹͲͽͽ͑Ά΅͑1C1.2DETAILPAGEͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡΅ͺ΅ͽͶ͑΄ͶͶ΅͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳͦͣͣͪ͟͢͠͠͡ΉPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"ʹ͖ͧͦ͑͢͟͡͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅290 ###!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(ààààQUARRY PARKWINERYSANBORN PARKCONGRESSSPRINGSROAD(HWY9)CONGRESSSPRINGSCREEKCONGRESSSPRINGSCREEKPROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE)BRIDGE 1BRIDGE 2BRIDGE 3BRIDGE 4PRIVATEWINERYROADWAYWATERDISTRICTUTILITYROADPROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE)SHEET C2.1SHEET C2.2SHEET C2.3SHEET C2.4SHEET C2.5LOWER STAGING AREA(ALONG ROADS AND PULLOUTSIN QUARRY PARK)WINERY ROADTRAIL HEADQUARRY PARKTRAIL HEADUPPER STAGING AREA 1(AT ROAD TURN OUT)UPPER STAGING AREA 2(ON SERVICE ROAD)TEMPORARY ACCESS(ALONG PG&E UTILITY ROAD)SB1SB2SB3SB4SB5SB6SB7SB8SB9SB10SB11SB12SB13SB14SB15SB16SB17SB18PG&E POWER LINE CORRIDORPG&ETOWERACCESSR D PG&ETOWERACCESSRD!©BC4.0!©AC4.00500950090008500800075007000 6500 6000550050004500400035003000250020001500100016000155001500014500140001350013000125001200011500110001050010000 950 9008508007507001300125013501450115011001200105010001700175065018001600185019001400165015501500 60016501600 140016501550150016506000 100 200 300 400 500Feet[LEGEND!STANEW TRAILROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONHIGHWAYMAIN ROADROCKED ROADUNSURFACE ROADEPHEMERAL STREAMINTERMITTENT STREAMPERENNIAL STREAMPARCEL BOUNDARYPGE POWER LINES#PG&E TOWER!(TRAIL SIGN!(TRAIL BENCHàPROPOSED BRIDGEͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣ͟͡·Ͷ·ͺͶΈ͑;Ͳ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳͦͣͣͪ͟͢͠͠͡ΉͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"PRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅291 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!èèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèDDDDDDGGGGGGGGG#7#7#7#7#7#7#7#7"""""""""""@A@A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!kCLEAN (E) DITCHDRAIN AT 8% (MIN)(N) 18" X 25' HDPE CULVERT AT DRY SWALEPLACE PIPE AT NATIVE GRADE (45%+/-) CONSTRUCT TRAIL ON 15 CY OF FILL. KEY AND BENCH FILL PER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. FILL CAN BE OBTAINED FROM FULL BENCH CONSTRUCTION ON ADJACENT SEGMENTS OF TRAIL.CLEAN (E) DITCH 75 LFDRAIN TO CULVERT INLETROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN NUTMEG TREES OK TO CUT IF REQUIRED.ROUTE ABOVE SLOPE BREAK(N) WOOD LAG RETAINING WALL30 LF X 2.5 FT H; 4 FT TREADCONSTRUCT TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 24 IN BAYROUTE TRAILBETWEEN TREESSWITCHBACK #110' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 35% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT +/- THICK, 4 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30 LF CUT BENCH, 3 FT +/- HIGHFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER(N) ROCK RW OR (N) ROCK FILL BENCH55 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADTRAIL TRAVERSES 65% TO 80% SIDE SLOPES. CONSTRUCTRETAINING WALL OR BUTTRESS TO MINIMIZE CUT. IMPORTROCK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROCK RETAINING WALL. SUITABLE ROCK MAY BE FOUND ALONG NEARBY TRAIL SEGMENTS. ENGINEER TO VERIFY AT TIME OFCONSTRUCTION.ROUTE TRAILBETWEEN TREESAS FEASIBLEROCKYROCKY(N) 18" X 30' DITCH RELIEF CULVERT(N) 35 LF FILL BENCHBUILD UP TRAIL ON COMPACTED FILL TO RAMP UP OVER OLD ROAD CUT. EST. 3' D; 10 CY. USE APPROVED FILL FROM ADJACENT CUTS.PROTECT TREEREMOVE 18' SNAGAND 10" BAYDRY SWALEAVOID AND PROTECT24" BAY TREEWOOD RAT NEST(AVOID IF FEASIBLE)EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CAUSED BY OVERLAND FLOW ORIGINATING FROM POOR DRAINAGE ON UPSLOPE QUARRY ROAD. CORRECT DRAINAGE ON UPPER ROAD. LARGE GROVE OF BAY TREESROCKYROCKYTRAIL ROUTED THROUGHEDGE OF TWO WOOD RATNESTS. MINIMIZE IMPACT TO EXTENT FEASIBLE.TRAIL TO BE ROUTED THROUGHSMALL GROUP OF BAY TREES.(ONE EACH 6 IN, 12 IN, 18 IN)PROPERTY LINE (APPROXIMATE)SHEET C3.1OLD SLIDEBRIDGE 1: 40 LFCORRECT ROAD DRAINAGEON QUARRY ROADSHEET C4.0050030002500200015001000B9B1012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061A62A63A64A65A66A67A68A69A61110010501000950 900800 750 70010501000850 750650020 40 60 80 100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣ͟͢΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙͑͢ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅292 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GGGGGG@A@A@A@A@A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ROCKYROCKYROCKYROCKYLESS ROCKYABUT WALL INTO ROOT WAD.PROTECT TREESPROBABLE UNSTABLE SLOPEBULGING TOOF SLIDE(AVOID CUT)ROUTE TRAILBETWEEN TREESSWITCHBACK #37' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 60% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 40 LF ALLEN BLOCK WALL, 4 FT H (MAX) COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FILL, EST 18 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 40+ LF CUT BANCH, 7 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 18 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERTRAIL TO BE ROUTED THROUGHSMALL GROUP OF BAY TREES.(ONE EACH 6 IN, 12 IN, 18 IN)REST AREA(N) BENCHTRAIL ROUTED BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF BAY TREESOK TO CUT IF NECESSARYROCKYROCKYCUT LEANING BAY(N) ROCK RETAINING WALL30 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADCONSTRUCT TO AVOID UNDERCUTTING UPSLOPE GROUP OF BAY TREES(N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK OR WOOD LAG)120 LF X 2.5 FT h X 4 FT TREADROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBY(N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK OR WOOD LAG)80 LF X 2.5 FT h X 4 FT TREADROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBY.CONSTRUCT TO AVOID UNDERCUTTING 36" BAYPROTECT TREEROCKYHISTORIC DRAG LINETRAIL WRAPS AROUND NOSE OF RIDGETRAIL ROUTED ACROSSGENTLY SLOPING BENCH.MINIMAL CUT AND FILLCONGRESS SPRINGS CREEK OVERLOOK(N) 120 LF OF PARTIAL BENCH TRAIL TO EXTEND OUT AND BACK FROM OVERLOOK.(N) 70 LF ROCK FILL BENCH TRAIL ROUTED BELOW ROCKY OUTCROPUSE ONSITE ROCK TO SUPPORT TRAIL TREADADJCENT BAY TREES MAY BE CUT AS NEEDED.SWITCHBACK #2SWITCHBACK ON BENCHFIELD FIT(N) RETAINING WALL (WOOD LAG, ROCK, OR WOOD CRIB)225 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4' W TREAD80% CROSS SLOPE(N) RETAINING WALL (WOOD LAG, ROCK, OR WOOD CRIB)50 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4' W TREAD75% CROSS SLOPECONSTRUCT TO MINIMIZE CUT INTO UNSTABLE SLOPE ABOVE. SWITCHBACK #47' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 50% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H (MAX), EST 11 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 40+ LF CUT BENCH, 5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 11 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERROCKYMINIMUM CUT TO PROTECT FIRCLAYEY SOILSFROM STN XXX TO XXXROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN TREES. PROTECT TREES TO EXTENT FEASIBLE(N) RETAINING WALL20 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREAD ACROSS OLD SLIDE SCARPROTECT ADJCENT 12" MADRONESWITCHBACK #612' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT H, EST 3 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 35+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 3 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #813' RADIUS, 9% TRAIL GRADOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, FIELD FIT AS DIRECTROAVOID WOOD RAT NEST IF FEASIBLE(N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK, WOOD LAG, OR WOOD CRIB)12 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBYCLAYEY SOILSINSTALL SILT FENCE BELOW TRAIL TO CONTAIN DEBRIS THAT MAYFAIL DURING CONSTRUCTIONSHEET C3.2CONGRESSSPRINGSCREEKROUTE TRAIL UP ~15% GRADIENT BENCHBRIDGE 2: 70 LF(N) BENCH(N) BENCHHELICOPTER DROP ZONE 1FOR BRIDGE SUPPLIES7500600055005000450040003500300110010509008508007501000 950 1150 1100 9008501050115011001100900B8B5B4B6B711011111211311411511611711811912012112212312412512612714114214315715815964A65A66A67A68A69A616263646566676869707172737475767778818283848586878889909192939495969798991001011021031041051061071081090 20406080100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͣ͟΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙ͣ͑ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅293 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG#7#7#7#7#7@A@A@A@A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CUT CT FIRROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN TREES. PROTECT TREES TO EXTENT FEASIBLESWITCHBACK #5~ 17' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 20% CROSS-SLOPEFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERROCKYSWITCHBACK #612' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT H, EST 3 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 35+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 3 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERTRAIL ROUTED THROUGH OR ADJACENT TO WOOD RAT NESTSSWITCHBACK #813' RADIUS, 9% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FT H, EST 3 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 3 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #712' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 30% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT H, EST 4 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 4 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERROUTE TRAIL ACROSSFALLEN TREE - REMOVEROOTWADROCKY RIDGEAVOID WOOD RAT NEST IF FEASIBLEAVOID WOOD RAT NEST IF FEASIBLEVERY ROCKY GROUNDTREAD LIKELY TO BE SUPPORTED ON ROCKFILL BENCHROCKYLESS ROCKY2 WOOD RATS NESTS - ROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN NESTS AS FEASIBLE. IF NOTAVOID ONE OF THE TWO.TRAIL ROUTED TOWARDS LOWER END OF GROUP OF BAY TREES. REMOVE 5 TO 6 TREES. SWITCHBACK #912' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 20% CROSS-SLOPEPARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTIONFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #118' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 40% CROSS-SLOPEROUTE BETWEEN TREESDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 2.5 FT H, EST 6 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 20+ LF CUT BENCH, 3.5 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #137' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 65% CROSS-SLOPEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 45 LF ALLEN BLOCK WALL, 4.6 FT H (MAX) COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FILL, EST 24 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 50+ LF CUT BENCH, 8.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 24 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.ROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN TREES.ROCKY RIDGETRAIL TO BE ROUTEDTHROUGH WOOD RAT NEST(N) ROCK FILL BENCH 30 LF X 3 FT HIGH X 4 FT WABUNDANT ROCK EXPOSED IN CUTSWITCHBACK #108' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPEROUTE BETWEEN TREESDOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 10 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 10 CYFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #1210' RADIUS, 19% TRAIL GRADE, 25% ROCKY RIDGEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 20 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FT H, EST 1 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 10+ LF CUT BENCH, 1.5 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #149' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 30% ROCKY RIDGEDOWNSLOPE LEG: 25 LF FILL, 1.5 FT H (MAX.), EST 1.5 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 20+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.ROUTE TRAIL THROUGH AND AROUND SEVERAL GROUPS OF BAY TREES. TRAIL SHOULD BE LOCATED ABOVE THE SLOPE BREAK TO MINIMIZE CUTS. IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED THEN OUTER TRAIL EDGE MAY BE SUPPORTED ON A ROCK FILL BENCHDEBRIS FLOWSCARSWITCHBACK #168' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPEROUTE AROUND TREESDOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 7 CYUPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSWITCHBACK #158' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 40% CROSS-SLOPEROUTE AROUND TREESDOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 2.5 FT H, EST 6+ CYUPSLOPE LEG: 20+ LF CUT BENCH, 3.5 FT +/- HIGH CUTFIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERSCENIC OVERLOOKOF STREAMTRAIL ROUTED BELOW AND THROUGHGROVE OF BAY TREESTRAIL ROUTED BETWEEN TREES(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)20 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREADWALL TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 36 OAKSWITCHBACK #179' RADIUS ON 45% SLOPESSUPPORT OUTER EDGE OF TRAIL ON FILL BENCH(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)25 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREADWALL TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 36 OAKSWITCHBACK #1810' RADIUS ON LESS THAN 30% SLOPESPARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTION(N) ROCK FILL TRAIL WRAPS AROUND NOSEOF ROCKY/BEDROCK RIDGEAVOID WOOD RAT NESTIF FEASIBLEBRIDGE 3: 50 LFSHEET C3.3ROCKY(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)25 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADTO PROTECT UPSLOPE TREE(N) BENCH(N) BENCH(N) BENCH(N) BENCH(N) BENCHHELICOPTER DROP ZONE 2FOR BRIDGE SUPPLIES950090008500800075007000 6500 60001200011500110001050010000155015001350130011501100145014001100105010009501250120010001500120010501200125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259B2B1HT1B3020406080100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͤ͟΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙ͤ͑ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅294 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!k#AVOID WOOD RAT NEST IF FEASIBLEROUTE TRAIL BETWEEN TREESROCKYMANZANITABRIDGE 4: 20 LFROOT WADLEANING 32 IN OAK - THE TREE IS AT HIGHRISK FOR FAILURE AND SHOULD BE CUT.IF THE TREE IS CUT THEN THE BETTER TRAIL ALIGNMENT IS BELOW.ROUTE BETWEEN TREES(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)25 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADTO PROTECT UPSLOPE TREE(N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG)25 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREADTO PROTECT UPSLOPE TREEPG&E TOWER ACCESS ROAD(N) BENCH(N) BENCHWATER DISTRICT UTILITY ROADPG&E TOWER ACCESS ROADPG&E UTILITY CORRIDOR1400013500130001250012000249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275278279 280280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302276277303310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337175016501600155015001550 150014501400 170016501350 160016000 20406080100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͥ͟΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙ͥ͑ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅295 kPROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATETRAIL ROUTED ALONGOLD OVERGROWN ROADMINIMAL GRADING REQUIREDCONNECTION WITHCONGRESS SPRINGS ROADWINERYROADWATER DISTRICT UTILITY ROADOLDOVERGROWNROADPG&E UTILITY CORRIDORSHEET C4.016000 15500150001450Text 16001550150014501400135013001250120011501650160011001650165015500 20406080100Feet[GRAVEL ROADDIRT ROADOVERGROWN ROADPG&E POWER COORIDORPG&E TOWER#50%PARCEL BOUNDARYNATIVE SLOPE GRADESCARPINTERMITTENT STREAMEPHEMERAL STREAMTREE (> 8" DBH)WOOD RAT NESTG!22CONTROL POINT MONUMENT (PIN FLAG)PROPOSED TRAILPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED BENCHkऊऋऐँࣶࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜऀँऎअऒँऀࣜंऎऋउࣜएࣽऊऐࣽࣜࣿईࣽऎࣰ࣮࣭ࣽࣜࣤ࣬ࣥࣜࣾࣽऎँࣜँࣽऎऐऄࣜईअऀࣽऎࣜऀࣽऐࣽ࣪ࣜࣿऋऊऐऋऑऎएࣜࣽऎँࣜࣽऌऌऎऋऔअउࣽऐँࣜࣽऊऀࣜࣽऎँࣜऀँऌअࣿऐँऀࣜंऋऎࣜअईईऑएऐऎࣽऐअऒँࣜऌऑऎऌऋएँए࣪ࣜCONSTRUCTION METHODPARTIAL BENCHCUT BENCHFILL BENCHROCK FILL BENCHRETAINING WALLROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSIONPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͦ͟΄ͺ΅Ͷ͑;Ͳ͙ͦ͑ͷ͚͑ͦ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅296 STA START STA END LENGTH (FT) SLOPE GRADIENT APPROX. TRAIL GRADIENT TRAIL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION WALL TYPE WALL HEIGHT (FT) COMMENT 0 30 30 30-40% 10 5 FILL BENCH (N) 35 LF FILL BENCH WITH (N) 18" X 30' HDPE CULVERTBUILD UP TRAIL ON COMPACTED FILL TO RAMP UP OVER OLD ROAD CUT. EST. 3' D; 10 CY. USE APPROVED FILL FROM ADJACENT CUTS. (N) 18" X 20' DITCH RELIEF CULVERTSLOPE AT 5% CLEAN (E) DITCH, 75 LF, DRAIN TO CULVERT 30 40 10 40-50% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 40 55 15 40-50% 10 5 CUT BENCH 55 110 65 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 110 155 45 50-65% 2 4 CUT BENCH 155 165 10 40-50% 2 4.5 FILL BENCH (N) 18" X 25' HDPE CULVERT AT DRY SWALE: PLACE PIPE AT NATIVE GRADE (45%+/-) CONSTRUCT TRAIL ON 15 CY OF FILL. KEY AND BENCH FILL PER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. FILL CAN BE OBTAINED FROM FULL BENCH CONSTRUCTION ON ADJACENT SEGMENTS OF TRAIL. 165 335 170 40-50% 12 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 335 380 45 65-75% 4 4 CUT BENCH 380 430 50 40-50% 2 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 430 460 30 65-75% 5 4 RETAINING WALL WOOD LAG 2.5 (N) WOOD LAG RETAINING WALL30 LF X 2.5 FT H; 4 FT TREAD. CONSTRUCT TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 24 IN BAY 460 520 60 65-75% 5 4 CUT BENCH 520 570 50 65-75% 0 4 CUT BENCH 570 720 150 50-65% 4 4 PARTIAL BENCH 720 800 80 40-50% 2 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 800 865 65 30-40% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 865 1030 165 0-30% 2 5 PARTIAL BENCH EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CAUSED BY OVERLAND FLOW ORIGINATING FROM POOR DRAINAGE ON UPSLOPE QUARRY ROAD. CORRECT DRAINAGE ON UPPER ROAD. 1030 1105 75 0-30% 2 5 PARTIAL BENCH 1105 1210 106 30-40% 4 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1210 1245 35 4 BRIDGE BRIDGE 1 1245 1265 14 30-40% 5 4.5 FILL BENCH 1265 1295 30 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 1295 1405 110 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1405 1450 45 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 1450 1495 45 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1495 1635 140 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1635 1655 20 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1655 1685 30 50-65% 7 4 PARTIAL BENCH 1685 1740 55 40-50% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 1740 1890 150 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 1890 2005 115 0-30% 4 5 PARTIAL BENCH 2005 2250 245 30-40% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 2250 2305 55 0-30% 8 5 PARTIAL BENCH 2305 2410 105 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 2410 2515 105 40-50% 9 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 2515 2545 30 30-40% 10 4.5 FILL BENCH SWITCHBACK #110' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 35% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT +/- THICK, 4 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30 LF CUT BENCH, 3 FT +/- HIGH FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 2545 2565 20 30-40% 0.25 4.5 CUT BENCH 2565 2630 65 >75% 15 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) ROCK RW OR (N) ROCK FILL BENCH55 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD TRAIL TRAVERSES 65% TO 80% SIDE SLOPES. CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL OR ROCK FILL BENCH TO MINIMIZE CUT. IMPORT ROCK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROCK RETAINING WALL (EST 8 CY). FOR ROCK BUTTRESS, SUITABLE ROCK MAY BE FOUND ALONG NEARBY TRAIL SEGMENTS. ENGINEER TO VERIFY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 2630 2780 150 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 2780 2815 35 65-75% 6 4 CUT BENCH 2815 2910 95 50-65% 9 4 PARTIAL BENCH 2910 3005 95 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 3005 3175 170 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 3175 3250 75 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 3250 3320 70 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 3320 3440 120 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 3440 3635 195 50-65% 11 4 PARTIAL BENCH 3635 3725 90 65-75% 10 4 CUT BENCH 3725 3755 30 65-75% 10 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) ROCK RETAINING WALL30 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD CONSTRUCT TO AVOID UNDERCUTTING UPSLOPE GROUP OF BAY TREES 3755 3850 95 65-75% 10 4 CUT BENCH 3850 4050 200 >75% 10 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK OR WOOD LAG)200 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD ROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBY AVOID UNDERCUTTING NEARBY 36" BAY 4050 4120 70 50-65% 10 4 CUT BENCH 4120 4190 70 65-75% 12 4 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 4 (N) 70 LF ROCK FILL BENCH TRAIL ROUTED BELOW ROCKY OUTCROP. USE ONSITE ROCK TO SUPPORT TRAIL TREAD. ADJACENT BAY TREES MAY BE CUT AS NEEDED. 4190 4235 45 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 4235 4305 70 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 4305 4330 25 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 4330 4451 121 0-30% 13 5 PARTIAL BENCH 4451 4521 70 0-30% 5 BRIDGE BRIDGE 2 4521 4521 0 0-30% 15 5 PARTIAL BENCH 4521 4920 399 0-30% 15 5 PARTIAL BENCH 4920 4935 15 0-30% 8 5 FILL BENCH 4935 4960 25 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 4960 5185 225 >75% 9 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 30 (N) RETAINING WALL (WOOD LAG, ROCK, OR WOOD CRIB)225 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4' W TREAD, 80% CROSS SLOPE 5185 5220 35 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 5220 5270 50 65-75% 3 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL (WOOD LAG, ROCK, OR WOOD CRIB)50 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4' W TREAD,75% CROSS SLOPE CONSTRUCT TO MINIMIZE CUT INTO UNSTABLE SLOPE ABOVE. 5270 5315 45 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 5315 5390 75 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 5390 5430 40 50-65% 10 4.5 RETAINING WALL ALLEN BLOCK 4 SWITCHBACK #37' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 60% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 40 LF ALLEN BLOCK OR ROCK WALL, 4 FT H (MAX) COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FILL, EST 18 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 40+ LF CUT BENCH, 7 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 18 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. 5430 5470 40 50-65% 12 4.5 CUT BENCH 7 5470 5520 50 40-50% 11 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 5520 5565 45 50-65% 10 4 CUT BENCH 5565 5585 20 50-65% 15 4 RETAINING WALL WOOD LAG 2 (N) RETAINING WALL20 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREAD ACROSS OLD SLIDE SCAR PROTECT ADJACENT 12" MADRONE 5585 5600 15 40-50% 15 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 5600 5630 30 40-50% 10 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 SWITCHBACK #47' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 50% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H (MAX), EST 11 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 40+ LF CUT BENCH, 5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 11 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 5630 5660 30 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 5660 5800 140 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 5800 5835 35 >75% 10 4 CUT BENCH 35 LF OF TRAIL CONSTRUCTED ACROSS STEEP 75% GRADIENT ROCKY SLOPES. CUT BENCH IS REASONABLE 5835 5865 30 65-75% 14 4 CUT BENCH STA START STA END LENGTH (FT) SLOPE GRADIENT APPROX. TRAIL GRADIENT TRAIL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION WALL TYPE WALL HEIGHT (FT) COMMENT 5865 5925 60 >75% 3 4 CUT BENCH 35 LF OF TRAIL CONSTRUCTED ACROSS STEEP 75% GRADIENT ROCKY SLOPES. CUT BENCH IS REASONABLE 5925 6045 120 65-75% 10 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL (ROCK, WOOD LAG, OR WOOD CRIB):12 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD. ROCK RETAINING WALL PREFERRED IF ROCK IS AVAILABLE NEARBY INSTALL SILT FENCE BELOW TRAIL TO CONTAIN DEBRIS THAT MAY FAIL DURING CONSTRUCTION. MINIMIZE CUT TO AVOID UNDERCUTTING UPSLOPE TREES. CLAYEY SOILS. 6045 6360 315 0-30% 14 5 PARTIAL BENCH TRAIL ROUTED UP BENCH AT 15% GRADE. 6360 6400 40 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH SWITCHBACK #517' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 20% CROSS-SLOPE PARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTION FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 6400 6440 40 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 6440 6460 20 0-30% 9 5 PARTIAL BENCH 6460 6565 105 30-40% 4 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 6565 6620 55 0-30% 3 5 PARTIAL BENCH 6620 6680 60 30-40% 3 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 6680 6715 35 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH SWITCHBACK #6 12' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPE PARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTION FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 6715 6750 35 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 6750 6850 100 30-40% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 6850 7030 180 40-50% 6 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7030 7060 30 30-40% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7060 7090 30 30-40% 11 4.5 FILL BENCH SWITCHBACK #712' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 30% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 2 FT H, EST 4 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 4 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 7090 7120 30 30-40% 11 4.5 CUT BENCH 7120 7180 60 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7180 7215 35 40-50% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7215 7240 25 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH ROUTE TRAIL PAST FALLEN TREE. REMOVE ROOT WAD 7240 7420 180 50-65% 0 4 PARTIAL BENCH 7420 7455 35 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7455 7480 25 30-40% 9 4.5 FILL BENCH SWITCHBACK #813' RADIUS, 9% TRAIL GRADE, 25% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 30 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FT H, EST 3 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 3 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 7480 7505 25 30-40% 9 4.5 CUT BENCH 7505 7580 75 30-40% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH VERY ROCKY GROUND: TREAD LIKELY TO BE SUPPORTED ON ROCK FILL BENCH 7580 7790 210 50-65% 7 4 PARTIAL BENCH 7790 7860 70 40-50% 9 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7860 7995 135 30-40% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 7995 8080 85 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 8080 8140 60 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH SWITCHBACK #912' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 20% CROSS-SLOPE PARTIAL BENCH CONSTRUCTION FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER INSTALL BENCH AS DIRECTED AND PER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 8140 8180 40 0-30% 2 5 PARTIAL BENCH 8180 8290 110 40-50% 11 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 8290 8350 60 30-40% 3 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 2 TRAIL WRAPS AROUND ROCKY BEDROCK NOSE. LIKELY ROCK FILL CONSTRUCTION 8350 8380 30 50-65% 8 4 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 (N) ROCK FILL 30 LF X 3 FT HIGH X 4 FT W ABUNDANT ROCK EXPOSED IN CUT 8380 8465 85 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 8465 8500 35 40-50% 10 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 SWITCHBACK #108' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE BETWEEN TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 7 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 7 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 8500 8530 30 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 8530 8570 40 50-65% 7 4 PARTIAL BENCH 8570 8600 30 30-40% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 8600 8670 70 30-40% 0 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 8670 8710 40 40-50% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 8710 8770 60 50-65% 9 4 PARTIAL BENCH 8770 8800 30 40-50% 10 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 2.5 SWITCHBACK #118' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 40% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE AROUND TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 2.5 FT H, EST 6 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 3.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 8800 8820 20 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 8820 8885 65 50-65% 4 CUT BENCH 8885 8945 60 50-65% 4 PARTIAL BENCH 8945 8965 20 0-30% 5 PARTIAL BENCH 8965 8980 15 0-30% 9 5 FILL BENCH SWITCHBACK #1210' RADIUS, 19% TRAIL GRADE, 25% ROCKY RIDGE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 20 LF FILL BENCH, 1.5 FT H, EST 1 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 10+ LF CUT BENCH, 1.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 8980 8995 15 0-30% 9 5 CUT BENCH 8995 9120 125 50-65% 8 4 CUT BENCH 9120 9165 45 50-65% 10 4 RETAINING WALL ALLEN 4.4 SWITCHBACK #137' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 65% CROSS-SLOPE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 45 LF ALLEN BLOCK WALL, 4.6 FT H (MAX) COVER WITH LANDSCAPE FILL, EST 24 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 50+ LF CUT BENCH, 8.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT, EST 24 CY FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 9165 9215 50 50-65% 10 4 CUT BENCH 9215 9325 110 50-65% 10 4 CUT BENCH 9325 9345 20 0-30% 10 5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 1.5 SWITCHBACK #149' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 30% ROCKY RIDGE DOWNSLOPE LEG: 25 LF FILL, 1.5 FT H (MAX.), EST 1.5 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 15+ LF CUT BENCH, 2 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 9345 9360 15 0-30% 10 5 CUT BENCH 9360 9370 10 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 9370 9475 105 50-65% 12 4 PARTIAL BENCH ROUTE TRAIL THROUGH AND AROUND SEVERAL GROUPS OF BAY TREES. TRAIL SHOULD BE LOCATED ABOVE THE SLOPE BREAK TO MINIMIZE CUTS. IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED THEN OUTER TRAIL EDGE MAY BE SUPPORTED ON A ROCK FILL BENCH. 9475 9540 65 50-65% 7 4 CUT BENCH 9540 9600 60 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 9600 9670 70 50-65% 7 4 CUT BENCH 9670 9700 30 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 9700 9735 35 40-50% 10 4.5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 2.5 SWITCHBACK #158' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 40% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE AROUND TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 2.5 FT H, EST 3 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 20+ LF CUT BENCH, 3.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 9735 9755 20 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 9755 9880 125 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 9880 10195 315 0-30% 9 5 PARTIAL BENCH STA START STA END LENGTH (FT) SLOPE GRADIENT APPROX. TRAIL GRADIENT TRAIL WIDTH CONSTRUCTION WALL TYPE WALL HEIGHT (FT) COMMENT 10195 10230 35 0-30% 10 5 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 SWITCHBACK #168' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE AROUND TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 7 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 10230 10260 30 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 10260 10425 165 40-50% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 10425 10495 70 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 10495 10515 20 50-65% 1 4 ROCK FILL BENCH ROCK BUTT 3 (N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG) 20 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREAD WALL TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 36 OAK 10515 10690 175 50-65% 9 4 PARTIAL BENCH 10690 10735 45 40-50% 12 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 10735 10770 35 40-50% 10 4.5 FILL BENCH 3 SWITCHBACK #178' RADIUS, 10% TRAIL GRADE, 45% CROSS-SLOPE ROUTE AROUND TREES DOWNSLOPE LEG: 35 LF FILL ROCK FILL BENCH, 3 FT H, EST 13 CY UPSLOPE LEG: 30+ LF CUT BENCH, 4.5 FT +/- HIGH CUT FIELD FIT AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 10770 10820 50 40-50% 10 4.5 CUT BENCH 10820 10860 40 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 10860 10885 25 50-65% 9 4 CUT BENCH 10885 10910 25 65-75% 9 4 RETAINING WALL WOOD LAG 2 (N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG) 25 LF X 2 FT H X 4 FT TREAD WALL TO PROTECT UPSLOPE 36 OAK 10910 10985 75 65-75% 9 4 CUT BENCH 10985 11135 150 40-50% 8 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11135 11200 65 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 11200 11240 40 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11240 11290 50 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11290 11390 100 0-30% 8 5 PARTIAL BENCH 11390 11440 50 4 BRIDGE BRIDGE 3 11440 11505 65 0-30% 8 5 PARTIAL BENCH 11505 11595 90 0-30% 10 5 PARTIAL BENCH 11595 11630 35 30-40% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11630 11660 30 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11660 11680 20 40-50% 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11680 11705 25 65-75% 7 4 CUT BENCH 11705 11785 80 >75% 9 4 RETAINING WALL ROCK 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG) 80 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD 11785 11820 35 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 11820 11870 50 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 11870 11955 85 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 11955 11970 15 65-75% 8 4 CUT BENCH 11970 11990 20 40-50% 14 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 11990 12060 70 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12060 12160 100 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12160 12230 70 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12230 12280 50 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12280 12315 35 40-50% 0 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12315 12335 20 50-65% 0 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12335 12420 85 50-65% 6 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12420 12545 125 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12545 12570 25 50-65% 10 4 RETAINING WALL WOOD LAG 2.5 (N) RETAINING WALL(ROCK OR WOOD LAG) 25 LF X 2.5 FT H X 4 FT TREAD TO PROTECT UPSLOPE TREE 12570 12610 40 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12610 12705 95 50-65% 8 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12705 12735 30 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12735 12745 10 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12745 12765 20 40-50% 7 4.5 BRIDGE 4 12765 12790 25 40-50% 0 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12790 12850 60 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 12850 12875 25 50-65% 7 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12875 12960 85 50-65% 0 4 PARTIAL BENCH 12960 13190 230 50-65% 2 4 PARTIAL BENCH 13190 13225 35 50-65% 10 4 PARTIAL BENCH 13225 13280 55 40-50% 3 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13280 13345 65 40-50% 10 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH LEANING 32 IN OAK - THE TREE IS AT HIGH RISK FOR FAILURE AND SHOULD BE CUT. IF THE TREE IS CUT THEN THE BETTER TRAIL ALIGNMENT IS BELOW. 13345 13490 145 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13490 13550 60 40-50% 12 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13550 13635 85 40-50% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13635 13670 35 40-50% 9 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13670 13690 20 50-65% 9 4 PARTIAL BENCH 13690 13765 75 50-65% 2 4 PARTIAL BENCH 13765 13835 70 40-50% 4 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13835 13925 90 40-50% 4 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 13925 14060 135 40-50% 7 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 14060 14165 105 30-40% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 14165 14290 125 40-50% 5 4.5 PARTIAL BENCH 14290 16007 1717 4 ROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSION ROAD TO TRAIL CONVERSION ͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͣͧ͟΅ͲͳͽͶ͑ͷ͑ʹͿ΄΅Άʹ΅ͺͿ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳ͖ͫͧͦ͑͟͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"297 298 299 300 !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!(((((((((((((((((((((((((èèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèè èèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D D D D D D D D D D D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!")")")")")")")")")")")#0#0(E) FENCEQUARRY ROADSHALLOW DITCH(N) CLEAN 75 LF DITCHTO DRAIN TO CULVERT(N) 18" X 30' HDPE CULVERTINV 830.75INV 829.25(N) RED2 CY OF 12" ROCK(N) 5 FOOT WIDE TRAIL10% GRADE30F24O24O10O4B10B6O6O4O83583084083084583084083518333837.7831842832841836837835840834 838839833[ͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͥ͟͡΅ͲͺͽͶͲ͵͑;Ͳ͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳͫ͟TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳ͟΅͟ʹ͟ͳͦͣͣͪ͟͢͠͠͡ΉͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"PRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION͖ͧͦ͑͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅èèèè è èèèèèèèèèèèèèèè èèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèè#0#0WINERYDRIVEWAYOLD ROADSHOULDERSHALLOW DRAIN DITCHMAINTAIN DRAIN DIPACROSS TRAIL(N) ROAD TO TRAILCONVERSION36M18O18O6O4B20M145514651455146014551465145514601145821459.990510Feet[01020FeetLegendEO_OLD_ROADEDGE OF ROADDDFENCETOP OF FILLèèèèèDITCHESCARPMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!SWALE")POSTTREEWOOD RAT NESTSCLLIMIT OF GROUND DIS(N) EDGE OF TRAIL(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((N) ROCK ENERGY DISSIPATER(N) CULVERT(E) CONTOURINDXINT(N) CONTOURS!!INDEX!!INTQUARRY PARK TRAIL HEAD!©AC4.0WINERY ROAD TRAIL HEAD!©BC4.0301 302 303 304 305 306 GENERAL NOTES 1) PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF: a) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 0330 DISTEL CIRCLE LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 2) DEFINITIONS a) THE "CITY" SHALL BE CITY OF SARATOGA. b) THE “ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST” SHALL BE TIMOTHY C. BEST. c) THE “CIVIL ENGINEER” SHALL BE WATERWAYS CONSULTING d) THE “STRUCTURAL ENGINEER” SHALL BE MAYONE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. e) THE “GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER” SHALL BE HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. f) THE “BRIDGE MANUFACTURER” SHALL BE THE SUPPLIER OF THE PREFABRICATED BRIDGE TRUSS ASSEMBLIES SELECTED BY THE MCOSD. g) THE "CONTRACTOR" SHALL BE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SELECTED BY THE MCOSD TO PERFORM THE WORK DESCRIBED HEREIN. h) ON THESE PLANS “ENGINEER” REFERS TO “ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST”, OR THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. THE ENGINEER HAS BEEN RETAINED BY THE DISTRICT AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE CONTRACTOR. 3) CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING ANY REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT'S GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT. 4) IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO BE FULLY INFORMED OF AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL LAWS, ORDINANCES, CODES, REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS WHICH IN ANY MANNER AFFECT THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, THOSE ENGAGED OR EMPLOYED IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION. 5) ALL CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF 2016 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, APPLICABLE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDNANCES, CODES, AND REQUIREMENTS, AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 1600 AGREEMENT. ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PERMITS AND PLANS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO ENABLE THE ENGINEER TO ADDRESS THE NEED FOR PLAN MODIFICATIONS. 6) THE CONTRACTOR, AT CONTRACTOR'S SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL PROVIDE, ALL MATERIALS, LABOR AND EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF ALL ITEMS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DEVIATION FROM THESE PLANS AND ASSOCIATED RISK AND EXPENSE. 7) CULTURAL RESOURCES: IN THE EVENT THAT HUMAN REMAINS AND/OR CULTURAL MATERIALS ARE FOUND, ALL PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUCTION SHALL CEASE WITHIN A 100-FOOT RADIUS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7050.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, AND SECTION 5097.94 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NOTIFY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CORONER IMMEDIATELY. 8) THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC REPORT PREPARED BY TIMOTHY C. BEST AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PLANS. EXAMINATION OF JOB SITE, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS WITH CONDITIONS AT THE SITE AND SHALL VERIFY EXISTING GRADES, ELEVATIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER AND SHALL BE RESOLVED BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. ANY DEVIATION, SUBSTITUTION OR ALTERATION TO THE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT FIELD CONDITIONS ARE NOT AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR MUST MAKE REVISIONS AND/OR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER/OWNER PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION. 2) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE CAREFULLY THE PROJECT AREA, THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE SUBMISSION OF A BID SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS INVESTIGATED AND IS SATISFIED AS TO THE CONDITIONS TO BE ENCOUNTERED, AS TO THE CHARACTER, QUALITY, AND SCOPE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED, THE QUANTITIES OF MATERIALS TO BE FURNISHED AND AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3) IN THE EVENT THAT ANY UNUSUAL CONDITIONS NOT COVERED BY THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING THE WORK, THE ENGINEER SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED FOR DIRECTIONS. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND FIELD CONDITIONS. 4) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS MAY DIFFER FROM THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL SITE. DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK, IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO EVALUATE THE SITE IN RELATION TO THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DISTRICT AND THE ENGINEER. 5) THE CONTRACTOR MUST ATTEND A PRE-BID MEETING WITH THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED WORK. A PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS SO THE CONTRACTOR MAY ASK QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE WORK AND TO MAKE SURE THE CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDS THE PERMIT CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. 6) THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. THE PURPOSE OF THESE MEETINGS IS TO ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR TO ASK QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE WORK AND TO MAKE SURE THE CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDS THE SCOPE OF WORK, PERMIT CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. 7) AT ALL TIMES DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, COPIES OF THE APPROVED FINAL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND PERMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THE CONSTRUCTION JOB SITE (WHERE SUCH COPIES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW) AND ALL PERSONS INVOLVED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BRIEFED ON THE CONTENT AND MEANING OF EACH PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. MAPPING 1) TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING PROVIDED BY: a) GROUND SURVEY BRIDGE: WATERWAYS CONSULTING, INC. SURVEY DATES VARY (2018) b) GROUND SURVEY TRAIL HEADS: TIMOTHY C. BEST, INC. SURVEY DATES VARY (2018) c) BASE MAP: DERIVED FROM 2014 SANTA CLARA COUNTY BARE EARTH LIDAR CONTOURS ON BASE MAP ARE APPROXIMATE 2) ELEVATION DATUM: GROUND BASED MAPS ARE BASED ON INDIVIDUAL ASSUMED LOCAL DATUM AERIAL LIDAR MAPPING: NAVD88 BASIS OF BEARINGS: NAD83 CALIFORNIA STATE PLANES, ZONE III 3) ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. CONTOUR INTERVAL VARIES. 4) THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. PROPERTY LINES, IF SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE, PENDING THE RESULTS OF A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY. 5) THE CITY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION OF ALL PROPERTY LINES AND EASEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THAT PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS ARE LOCATED ON CITY OWNED LANDS OR ARE COORDINATED WITH OWNERS AND APPROPRIATE PERMISSIONS ARE GRANTED FOR THE WORK. 6) CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING AND LAYOUT, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 7) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF ALL SURVEY MONUMENTS OR PROPERTY CORNERS. DISTURBED MONUMENTS SHALL BE RESTORED BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED 8) MAINTAIN A CURRENT, COMPLETE, AND ACCURATE RECORD OF ALL AS-BUILT DEVIATIONS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE ENGINEER OF RECORD WITH A BASIS FOR THE PREPARATION OF RECORD DRAWINGS. 9) TREE DIMENSIONS: ONLY TREES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 8” DBF WITHIN OR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE TRAIL FOOT PRINT ARE MAPPED. THE MAPPING OF SMALLER TREES IS INCOMPLETE. TRUNK DIAMETERS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. TREE TRUNK DIMENSIONS MAY BE SHOWN OUT-OF-SCALE FOR PLOTTING CLARITY. CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN DESIGNING NEAR TREE TRUNKS. THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON FIELD ACCURACY, DRAFTING ACCURACY, MEDIUM STRETCH AS WELL AS THE "SPREAD" OR "LEANING" OF TREES. REQUEST ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC DETAIL WHERE CLOSE TOLERANCES ARE ANTICIPATED. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 1) CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (1-800-642-2444) TO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 2) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, CONTACT ALL UTILITIES COMPANIES WITH REGARD TO WORKING OVER, UNDER, OR AROUND EXISTING FACILITIES AND TO OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE FACILITIES. 3) EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE COMPILED FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY AGENCIES AND FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTS TO ABOVE GROUND FEATURES READILY VISIBLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT ONLY ACTUAL EXCAVATION WILL REVEAL THE DIMENSIONS, SIZES, MATERIALS, LOCATIONS, AND DEPTH OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 4) THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION AND/OR PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED PIPING, UTILITIES, TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT (BOTH ABOVE GROUND AND BELOW GROUND), STRUCTURES, AND ALL OTHER EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE UTILITIES, ANY RESULTING DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED AT CONTRACTOR'S COST. 5) PRIOR TO COMMENCING FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION, DISCOVER OR VERIFY THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS, SIZES, MATERIALS, LOCATIONS, AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND POTHOLE THOSE AREAS WHERE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE LIKELY OR DATA IS OTHERWISE INCOMPLETE. 6) TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7) UPON LEARNING OF THE EXISTENCE AND/OR LOCATIONS OF ANY UNDERGROUND FACILITIES NOT SHOWN OR SHOWN INACCURATELY ON THE PLANS OR NOT PROPERLY MARKED BY THE UTILITY OWNER, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE UTILITY OWNER AND THE CITY BY TELEPHONE AND IN WRITING. 8) UTILITY RELOCATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT FACILITIES WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TRAIL LAYOUT 1) NEW TRAIL, BRIDGES AND CULVERTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE MADE BASED ON ONSITE CONDITIONS. CONTACT TIMOTHY BEST, CEG (831-425-5832) FOR TRAIL, BRIDGE AND CULVERT LOCATIONS. 2) FINAL FLAGGED TRAIL ALIGNMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ANY EARTHWORK. 3) NEW TRAIL SHALL BE LAID OUT TO CONFORM TO NATURAL TERRAIN TO CREATE AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING ALIGNMENT. THE ALIGNMENT SHOULD AVOID LONG STRAIGHT REACHES. THE ALIGNMENT SHOULD INCORPORATE NATURAL TERRAIN FEATURES TO FORM REQUIRED REVERSE GRADES DIPS TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. 4) TRAIL SHALL BE LAID OUT AND CONSTRUCTED TO INCORPORATE BROAD REVERSE GRADE DIPS. TO THESE EXTEND FEASIBLE THESE SHOULD BE INCORPORATE INTO THE TRAIL DESIGN RATHER THAN CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE FACT. SEE TRAIL DRAINAGE AND TYPICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAXIMUM DIP SPACING 5) ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE ALIGNMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THAT WORK. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 1) DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS. 2) THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIES TO ENSURE THAT STORM WATER POLLUTION IS PREVENTED SHALL BE EMPLOYED: a) LIMIT THE EXTENT OF TRAIL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT ANY GIVEN TIME b) INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCES AS PRESCRIBED ON PLANS c) INSTALL PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS TRAIL CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INCLUDE: d) INSTALL FREQUENT REVERSE GRADE DIPS AT ROUGHLY 100 TO 150 FOOT SPACINGS. e) EXPOSED MINERAL SOILS OUTSIDE OF THE TRAIL RUNNING SURFACE GREATER THAN 50 SQUARE FEET (SF) AND WITH EXPOSED SLOPE DISTANCE EXCEEDING 10 FEET AND WITH LESS THAN 80% GROUND COVERAGE OF NATURAL VEGETATION SHALL BE MULCHED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR SHORT-TERM SHEET AND RILL EROSION. MULCH USING NATIVE DUFF AND SLASH. 3) WINTER CONSTRUCTION a) ANY GRADING FOR THE PROJECT AFTER OCTOBER 1 SHALL BE COMPLETED IN DRY WEATHER OR LOW RAINFALL (LESS THAN ½ INCH PER 24 HOUR PERIOD). b) A MINIMUM OF 200 LINEAR FEET OF STRAW WATTLE AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT STAGING AREA OR ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. c) IN THE EVENT OF 25 PERCENT CHANCE OF FORECAST INCLEMENT WEATHER (GREATER THAN ½ INCH OF RAINFALL IN 24 HOUR PERIOD), TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (E.G. STRAW WATTLES, SILT FENCE, EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS, ETC) SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROTECT THE SECTION OF TRAIL THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. INSPECTIONS 1) ANY TESTS, INSPECTIONS, SPECIAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING CODES, LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENTS, OR THESE PLANS, SHALL BE DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT INSPECTION COMPANY. JOB SITE VISITS BY THE ENGINEER DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL INSPECTION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE REQUIRED TESTS AND INSPECTIONS ARE PERFORMED. 2) ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO OBSERVATION, TESTING AND APPROVAL BY DISTRICT, ENGINEER, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, IN ADDITION TO INSPECTIONS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY AGENCIES. 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER A MINIMUM OF 7 DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND A MINIMUM OF 4 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL ALSO BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST FOUR (4) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO ANY SITE CLEARING OR GRADING SO THAT THE WORK IN THE FIELD CAN BE COORDINATED WITH THE GRADING CONTRACTOR, AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR TESTING AND OBSERVATION CAN BE MADE. THE PROJECT ENGINEER (ENGINEER) SHALL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW PROJECT DRAWINGS WITH THE CONTRACTOR DURING THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING TO EVALUATE IF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY INTERPRETED. THE ENGINEER SHALL ALSO PROVIDE KEYWAY EXCAVATION AND EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS. THIS ALLOWS THE ENGINEER TO CONFIRM ANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS AND EVALUATE CONFORMANCE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROJECT DRAWINGS. IF THE ENGINEER IS NOT PROVIDED THIS OPPORTUNITY THEY ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISINTERPRETATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 4) REGULATORY AGENCIES MAY REQUIRE A FINAL GRADING COMPLIANCE LETTER. WE CAN ONLY OFFER THIS LETTER IF WE ARE CALLED TO THE SITE TO OBSERVE AND TEST, AS NECESSARY, ANY GRADING AND EXCAVATION OPERATIONS FROM THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. WE CANNOT PREPARE A LETTER IF WE ARE NOT AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY OF OBSERVATION FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE GRADING OPERATION. THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE MADE AWARE OF THIS AND EARTHWORK TESTING AND OBSERVATION MUST BE SCHEDULED ACCORDINGLY. PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE. 5) IF UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION, OR IF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL DIFFER FROM THAT PLANNED AT THIS TIME, THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED SO THAT SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE GIVEN. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SCHEDULE 1) IN ADDITION TO OBSERVATIONS OF WORK, ENGINEER WILL FLAG THE LOCATION OF PROPOSED FEATURES. 2) REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS BY ENGINEER SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO: a) FINAL TRAIL ALIGNMENT, TRAIL ROUGH AND FINAL GRADING, DRAINAGE FEATURE LOCATIONS (INCLUDING DRAIN DIPS, KNICKS, ETC) b) LIMITS OF GRADING, EXCAVATION AND SPOIL PLACEMENT c) RETAINING WALL LOCATIONS AND EXCAVATIONS d) LIMITS OF PROPOSED BORROW SITES e) BRIDGE LOCATION, FOUNDATION EXCAVATION (FOOTING INSPECTION), STEEL REINFORCEMENT PLACEMEN, CONCRETE PLACEMENT, BRIDGE INSTALLATION f) BMP'S, INCLUDING DIVERSION AND DEWATERING SYSTEMS, PRIOR TO SITE DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE 1) PROJECT SCHEDULE: PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, SUBMIT TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL A DETAILED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. DO NOT BEGIN ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK UNTIL THE PROJECT SCHEDULE AND WORK PLAN IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH THE ENGINEER SO THAT THE QUALITY OF WORK CAN BE CHECKED FOR APPROVAL. PURSUE WORK IN A CONTINUOUS AND DILIGENT MANNER TO ENSURE A TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 2) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN, PERMITTING, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES DEEMED NECESSARY. SAFETY 1) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GENERAL SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO PERTINENT SAFETY REGULATIONS AND CODES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING, INSTALLING, AND MAINTAINING ALL WARNING SIGNS AND DEVICES NECESSARY TO SAFEGUARD THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE WORK, AND PROVIDE FOR THE PROPER AND SAFE ROUTING OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF OSHA IN THE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. 2) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTION LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. NEITHER THE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF CONSULTANT NOR THE PRESENCE OF CONSULTANT OR HIS OR HER EMPLOYEES OR SUB-CONSULTANTS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONTRACTORS OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, SEQUENCE, TECHNIQUES OR PROCEDURES NECESSARY FOR PERFORMING, SUPERINTENDING OR COORDINATING ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE HEALTH OR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS OF ANY REGULATORY AGENCY OR OF STATE LAW. 3) CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 4) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS OF THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PERTAINING TO EXCAVATION AND TRENCHES THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 8, SUBCHAPTER 4 CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS, ARTICLE 6 EXCAVATION. STAGING AND ACCESS 1) AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS, ROUTES, AND STAGING AREAS ARE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND STAGING AREAS WILL BE RESTRICTED TO EXISTING ROADS AND PREVIOUSLY CLEARED TURNOUTS OR LANDINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. 2) IMPACTS TO THE ACCESS ROUTES MUST BE MINIMIZED AND DISTURBANCE ALONG THE ACCESS ROUTE SHALL BE RESTORED TO PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS UPON PROJECT COMPLETION. 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CAREFULLY PRESERVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY BY CONFINING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WORK. CONSTRUCTION WORK OR EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED WORK AREA BOUNDARY WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT. 4) ACCESS OVER EXISTING ROADS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. IF THROUGH ACCESS CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, A SCHEDULE FOR CLOSURE MUST BE APPROVED BY A CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. 5) NO AREA WITHIN THE CONTRACT LIMITS IS AVAILABLE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CONTRACTOR. USE OF CONTRACTOR’S WORK AREAS AND ANY MOBILIZATION AREAS SHALL BE AT CONTRACTOR’S OWN RISK, AND CITY SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT LOCATED WITHIN SUCH AREAS. HOUSEKEEPING 1) MAINTAIN THE SITE IN A NEAT AND ORDERLY MANNER THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. STORE ALL MATERIALS WITHIN APPROVED STAGING AREAS. 2) CONSTRUCTION WATER IS AVAILABLE AT xxxxx 3) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN GOOD CONSTRUCTION SITE HOUSEKEEPING CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (E.G., CLEAN UP ALL LEAKS, DRIPS, AND OTHER SPILLS IMMEDIATELY; KEEP MATERIALS COVERED AND OUT OF THE RAIN (INCLUDING COVERING EXPOSED PILES OF SOIL AND WASTES); DISPOSE OF ALL WASTES PROPERLY, PLACE TRASH RECEPTACLES ON SITE FOR THAT PURPOSE, COVER OPEN TRASH RECEPTACLES DURING WET WEATHER, REMOVE ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FROM THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN ALL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AND TO INSPECT THEM FREQUENTLY FOR LEAKS. 4) EQUIPMENT WASHING, REFUELING, AND/OR SERVICING SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE EXCEPT WITH APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID FUEL SPILLS, AT LEAST 100 FEET AWAY FROM STREAM CHANNELS, FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. 5) PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED OFFSITE. 6) SWEEP UP ANY SPILLED DRY MATERIALS IMMEDIATELY. USE ONLY WATER FOR DUST CONTROL. 7. CLEAN UP ANY SPILLS ON A DIRT AREA BY DIGGING UP AND PROPERLY DISPOSING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL AT AN APPROPRIATE FACILITY. ͶͲͶ͵͑Ͳ΅͑΅Ͷ͑ͶΆͶ΄΅͑ͷͫʹͺ΅Ί͑ͷ͑΄ͲͲ΅ͲΆͳͽͺʹ͑Έͼ΄ͤͨͨͨ͑͢ͷΆͺ΅·ͲͽͶ͑Ͳ·Ͷ΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑͝ʹͲ͑ͪͦͨ͡͡ʹͦͦ͟ͶͿͶͲͽ͑Ϳ΅Ͷ΄͵Ͷ΄ͺͿͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵ͲΈͿ͑ͳΊͫʹͶʹͼͶ͵͑ͳΊͫ͵Ͳ΅Ͷͫͻͳ͑Ϳ͖ͫͧͦ͑͟͵Ͷ΄ͺͿ͑΄Άͳ;ͺ΅Ͳͽ͑΄ͲͲ΅Ͳ͑΅͑΄ͲͿͳͿ͑΅Ͳͺͽ͑ͻͶʹ΅TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐ࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪ऐࣱ࣮࣮࣭࣪ࣿ࣪ࣾ࣪࣫࣫࣬ࣵएࣽऎࣩएࣽऎ࣮एࣽऊࣲࣩࣳࣳPRELIMINARY DRAFTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONͳͲ͑ͺ΄͑ͿͶ͑ͺͿʹ͑ͿͺͺͿͲͽ͑͵ͲΈͺͿ͝Ͳ͵ͻΆ΄΅͑΄ʹͲͽͶ΄͑ͷͶ͵ΆʹͶ͵͑ͽ΅΄01"307 MMRP-1 SARATOGA-TO-SANBORN TRAIL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTINGPROGRAM June 25, 2019 This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Quarry Park-Sanborn County Park Connector (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 below 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, AIR-1 is the first 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 “Timing,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Responsible for Implementing,” names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The last column “Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. 308 MMRP-2 QUARRY PARK-SANBORN COUNTY PARK CONNECTOR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The Project will implement BAAQMD’s Basic Control Measures for fugitive dust control during future construction to reduce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5). The Project contractor shall prepare a dust control plan prior to commencement of construction activities. Specification of the approved dust control measures shall be included in all construction documents and implemented during construction activities. The dust control plan shall include the following BAAQMD Basic Control Measures listed below: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 ft of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Apply water twice daily or as often as necessary, to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible), or as often as needed, with water sweepers all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust. Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the Project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Vehicle idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use, or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with During Construction Construction Contractor Public Works Department 309 MMRP-3 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pre-Activity Surveys for Special-Status Plants. Prior to initial ground disturbance and during the appropriate blooming period (i.e., bent-flowered fiddleneck, June – July; Loma Prieta hoita, June – July; woodland woolythreads, March – July; and white-flowered rein orchid, May - September), a focused survey for these four potentially occurring special-status plant species will be conducted within suitable habitat in the project footprint and a minimum 20-ft buffer around the project footprint. This buffer may be increased by the qualified plant ecologist depending on site-specific conditions and activities planned in the areas, but must be at least 20 ft wide. Situations for which a greater buffer may be required include proximity to proposed activities expected to generate large volumes of dust, such as grading; or potential for project activities to alter hydrology supporting the habitat for the species in question. Surveys are to be conducted in a year with near-average or above-average precipitation. The purpose of the survey will be to assess the presence or absence of the potentially occurring species. If none of the target species are found in the impact area or the identified buffer, then no further mitigation will be warranted. If bent-flowered fiddleneck, Loma Prieta hoita, woodland woolythreads, or white- flowered rein orchid individuals are found in the survey area, then Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 will be implemented. Before and During Construction Public Works Department Public Works Department Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoidance Buffers. To the extent feasible, and in consultation with a qualified plant ecologist, the project proponent will design and construct the project to avoid completely impacts on all populations of special- status plant species within the project site or within the identified buffer of the impact area. Avoided special-status plant populations will be protected by establishing and observing the identified buffer between plant populations and the impact area. All such populations located in the impact area or the identified buffer, and their associated designated avoidance areas, will be clearly depicted on any construction plans. In addition, prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation removal, the limits of the identified buffer around special-status plants to be avoided will be flagged or fenced. The flagging will be maintained intact and in good condition throughout project-related construction activities. If complete avoidance is not feasible and more than 10% of a population (by occupied area or Before and During Construction Construction Contractor in consultation with a qualified plant ecologist Public Works Department 310 MMRP-4 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring individuals) would be impacted as determined by a qualified plant ecologist, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 will be implemented. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Preserve Off-Site Populations of Special-Status Plant Species. If avoidance of CRPR 1 or 2 special-status plant species is not feasible and more than 10% of the population would be impacted, compensatory mitigation will be provided via the preservation, enhancement, and management of occupied habitat for the species. To compensate for impacts on CRPR 1 or 2 special-status plants, off-site habitat occupied by the affected species will be preserved and managed in perpetuity at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio (at least one plant preserved for each plant affected, and at least one occupied acre preserved for each occupied acre affected), for any impact over the 10% significance threshold. Areas proposed to be preserved as compensatory mitigation for special-status plant impacts must contain verified extant populations of the CRPR-ranked plants that would be impacted. Mitigation areas will be managed in perpetuity to encourage persistence and even expansion of the preserved target species. Mitigation lands cannot be located on land that is currently held publicly for resource protection unless substantial enhancement of habitat quality will be achieved by the mitigation activities. The mitigation habitat will be of equal or greater habitat quality compared to the impacted areas, as determined by a qualified plant ecologist, in terms of soil features, extent of disturbance, vegetation structure, and dominant species composition, and will contain or successfully re-establish at least as many individuals of the species as are impacted by project activities. The permanent protection and management of mitigation lands will be ensured through an appropriate mechanism, such as a conservation easement or fee title purchase. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMRP) will be developed and implemented for the mitigation lands. That plan will include, at a minimum, the following information: a summary of habitat impacts and the proposed mitigation; a description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions; a description of measures to be undertaken to enhance (e.g., through focused management that may include removal of invasive species in adjacent suitable but currently unoccupied habitat) the mitigation site for the focal special-status species; a description of measures to transplant individual plants or seeds from the impact area to the mitigation site, if appropriate (which will be determined by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist); proposed management activities to maintain high-quality habitat conditions for the focal species; a description of habitat and species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc. At a minimum, performance criteria will include demonstration that any plant population fluctuations over the monitoring period Before and During Construction Public Works Department Public Works Department 311 MMRP-5 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring do not indicate a downward trajectory in terms of reduction in numbers and/or occupied area for the preserved mitigation population that can be attributed to management (i.e., that are not the result of local weather patterns, as determined by monitoring of a nearby reference population, or other factors unrelated to management); and contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria. The HMMRP will be prepared by a qualified plant or restoration ecologist. Approval of the HMMRP by the City will be required before the project impact occurs. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Before any construction activities begin, the City will hire a qualified biologist who will conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include descriptions of all special-status species potentially occurring on the project site and their habitats, the importance of these species, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve them as they relate to the proposed project, and the boundaries within which project activities may be accomplished. Before and During Construction Construction Contractor in consultation with a qualified biologist. Public Works Department Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoidance. Because dusk and dawn are often the times when the red-legged frog is most actively moving and foraging, to the maximum extent practicable, earthmoving and other project activities will cease no less than 30 minutes before sunset and will not begin again prior to 30 minutes after sunrise. Further, to the extent practicable, ground-disturbing activities will be avoided from October through April because that is when red-legged frogs are most likely to be moving through upland areas. When ground-disturbing activities must take place between November 1 and March 31, the following measures will be implemented. During Construction Construction Contractor Public Works Department Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Pre-activity Survey. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for the California red-legged frog prior to initial ground disturbing activities within 100 ft of any stream crossing and will remain on-site to monitor during all initial ground-disturbing activities within this area. If a California red-legged frog is encountered in the work area, all activities with the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual will be immediately halted and will not resume until the individual leaves the project site of its own accord. Before Construction Construction Contractor in consultation with a qualified biologist. Public Works Department Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Pre-activity Survey. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for special-status amphibians and reptiles prior to initial ground disturbing activities within 100 ft of any stream crossing and will remain on-site to monitor during all initial ground-disturbing activities within this area. If a species of special concern is encountered in the work area, all activities with the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual will be immediately halted and the following measures implemented: If eggs or larvae are found, the qualified biologist will establish a buffer around the location Before Construction Construction Contractor in consultation with a qualified biologist. Public Works Department 312 MMRP-6 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring of the eggs/larvae and work may proceed outside of the buffer zone. No work will occur within the buffer zone. Work within the buffer zone will be rescheduled until the time that eggs have hatched and/or larvae have metamorphosed. If an adult is found, the individual will be captured and relocated to a safe location outside of the work area by a qualified biologist, after which work may proceed. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Preconstruction Surveys and Avoidance or Nest Relocation. Prior to any clearing of, or work within, woodland, riparian, and scrub habitats, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests. If active nests are determined to be present within or very close to the impact areas, the following measures will be implemented. Dusky-footed woodrats are year-round residents. Therefore, avoidance measures are limited to restricting project activities to avoid direct impacts on woodrats and their active nests to the extent feasible. Ideally, a minimum 5-ft buffer will be maintained between project activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, removing the nest would be a greater impact than that anticipated as a result of project activities. If avoidance of active nests is not feasible, then the woodrats will be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests and onset of any clearing or ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the woodrats. The nests will be dismantled and the nesting material moved to a new location outside the project’s impact areas so that it can be used by woodrats to construct new nests. Prior to nest deconstruction, each active nest will be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge out of the impact area. Whether the nest is on the ground or in a tree, the nest will be nudged to cause the woodrats to flee. The nest will then be dismantled and the nest material piled at the base of a nearby hardwood tree or shrub (preferably with refuge sites among the tree roots or with dense vegetation or other refugia nearby) outside of the impact area. The spacing between relocated nests will not be less than 100 ft, unless a qualified biologist has determined that the habitat can support higher densities of nests. Before and During Construction Construction Contractor in consultation with a qualified biologist. Public Works Department Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Protect Bat Colonies. To minimize impacts on pallid bats the following measures will be implemented: A pre-activity survey for roosting pallid bats will be conducted prior to the onset of ground- disturbing activities. A qualified bat biologist will conduct a survey to look for evidence of bat use within suitable habitat. If evidence of use is observed, or if high-quality roost sites are present in areas where evidence of bat use might not be detectable (such as a tree cavity), an evening survey and/or a nocturnal acoustic survey may be necessary to determine if a bat colony is present and to identify the specific location of the bat colony. If no active maternity colony or non-breeding bat roost is located, project work can Before Construction Public Works Department in consultation with a qualified biologist. Public Works Department 313 MMRP-7 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring continue as planned. If an active pallid bat maternity colony or non-breeding roost is located, the project work will be redesigned to avoid disturbance of the roosts, if feasible. If an active maternity colony is located and project work cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied tree, disturbance will be scheduled to take place outside the maternity roost season (March 15–July 31), and a disturbance-free buffer zone (determined by a qualified bat biologist) will be implemented during the maternity roost season. If an active non-breeding bat roost is located and project work cannot be redesigned to avoid removal or disturbance of the occupied tree, the individuals will be safely evicted between August 1 and October 15 or between February 15 and March 15 (as determined by a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW). Bats may be evicted through exclusion after notifying CDFW. Trees with roosts that must be removed will first be disturbed at dusk, just before removal that same evening, to allow bats to escape during the darker hours. Mitigation Measure BIO-10 (Provide Alternative Bat Roost Habitat) may need to be implemented subsequently. Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Provide Alternative Bat Roost Habitat. If, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9, a qualified bat biologist identifies a tree containing a pallid bat maternity roost that is to be removed by project activities, a qualified bat biologist will design and determine an appropriate location for an alternative roost structure. If a tree containing a pallid bat maternity roost is not removed, but project-related disturbance causes the abandonment of the roost site (even during the non-breeding season), then the City will either monitor the roost site to determine whether the affected species returns to the roost, or construct an alternative roost. If the City elects to monitor the roost and bats do not return within one year, then an alternative roost will be constructed. Before Construction Public Works Department in consultation with a qualified biologist. Public Works Department Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Best Management Practices for Work within Sensitive Habitats. The following measures will be implemented to reduce impacts on mixed riparian forest and the associated streams. Additionally, the project will acquire permits from CDFW and RWQCB and follow all requirements and avoidance and minimization measures listed therein. Personnel will prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water into channels. Spill prevention kits will always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials. No equipment servicing will be done in the stream channel or immediate flood plain, unless equipment stationed in these locations cannot be readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators). Personnel will use the appropriate equipment for the job that minimizes disturbance to the stream bottom. Appropriately-tired vehicles, either tracked or wheeled, will be used During Construction Construction Contractor Public Works Department 314 MMRP-8 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring depending on the situation. Temporary fills, such as for access ramps or scaffolding, will be completely removed upon finishing the work. Existing native vegetation will be retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width. If riparian vegetation is to be removed with chainsaws, consider using saws currently available that operate with vegetable-based bar oil. Control exposed soil by stabilizing slopes (e.g., with erosion control blankets) and protecting channels (e.g., using silt fences or straw wattles). Control sediment runoff using sandbag barriers or straw wattles. Stabilize site ingress/egress locations. Temporary disturbance or removal of aquatic and riparian vegetation will not exceed the minimum necessary to complete the work. Vehicles operated within and adjacent to streams will be checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of materials that, if introduced to the water, could be deleterious to aquatic life. Potential contaminating materials must be stored in covered storage areas or secondary containment that is impervious to leaks and spills. All disturbed soils will be revegetated with native plants suitable for the altered soil conditions upon completion of construction. Local watershed native plants will be used if available. All disturbed areas that have been compacted shall be de-compacted prior to planting or seeding. Cut-and-fill slopes will be planted with local native or non-invasive plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Mitigation Plantings for Permanent Loss of Riparian Trees. All trees removed within mixed riparian forest habitat will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 (mitigation stems: impacted stems). Trees to be removed likely consist of only California bay, a tree which is very abundant within riparian areas in the study area and the vicinity. Replaced trees will preferably consist of the same species which was removed during project implementation, and be planted within the same reach where impacts occur. Irrigation will not be installed, so the replacement trees must be planted low enough on the riparian banks to anticipate intercepting seasonal groundwater. Replacement trees will be monitored annually for three years and replaced to 100% survivorship through Year 3. After Construction Public Works Department Public Works Department Mitigation Measure BIO-13: Protection Measures for Nesting Birds. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided. Before and During Construction Construction Contractor in consultation with a qualified biologist. Public Works Department 315 MMRP-9 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring The nesting season for most birds in the project region extends from February 1 through August 31. Preconstruction Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31 then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project construction. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist should inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. Buffers. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by project activities, the ornithologist should determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 ft for raptors and 100 ft for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be disturbed during project implementation. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Prior to commencing site preparation and trail construction, the City shall hold a preconstruction meeting with the construction crew to inform them with a description of the types of resources that could be discovered and the steps to take in the event of a find. Before Construction Public Works Department Public Works Department Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If archaeological and/or paleontological materials are encountered during the field review, all work within 25 ft of the discovery would be redirected until a qualified archaeologist assesses the finds, consults with City staff, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Adverse effects to archaeological and paleontological resources shall be avoided by project activities. Project personnel shall not collect or move any historical or archaeological resources. If avoidance of the deposit is not feasible, the deposit should be evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, mitigation is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, they shall be avoided by project construction activities, or recovered in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment (i.e., archaeological excavation and laboratory analysis), 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. Before and During Construction Construction Contractor in consultation with a qualified archaeologist if necessary. Public Works Department Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If human remains are encountered during construction that results from approval of the proposed Project, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered remains and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context. Once the county coroner is contacted, if it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American During Construction Construction Contractor Public Works Department 316 MMRP-10 Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for Implementing Responsible for Monitoring Heritage Commission (“NAHC”). The NAHC would then identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased. These descendants will make recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Erosion Control. Any grading for the Project after October 1 shall be completed in dry weather or low rainfall (less than ½ inch per 24 hour period). A minimum of 200 linear ft of straw wattle and erosion control blankets shall be available at staging areas or on site at all times. In the event of 25% chance of forecast inclement weather (greater than ½ inch of rainfall in 24 hour period), temporary erosion control measures (e.g. straw wattles, silt fence, erosion control blankets, etc.) shall be installed to protect the section of trail under construction. Before and During Construction Construction Contractor Public Works Department Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Stormwater Pollution Prevention. The contractor will develop and get approval for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Project. The SWPPP shall include an erosion control plan and best management practices that will ensure that erosion and sedimentation will be minimized. Construction shall be monitored per SWPPP requirements to ensure that stormwater is being managed to prevent soil erosion and water quality impacts. Before and During Construction Construction Contractor Public Works Department Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Incorporation of Geologic and Geotechnical Recommendations. The Project will incorporate all recommendations in the Best Report to ensure that impacts related to unstable soil, and potential landslides, subsidence, liquefaction and collapse are minimized. Before and During Construction Construction Contractor and Public Works Department Public Works Department NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The Santa Clara County Municipal Code limits construction activities to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and prohibits construction on Sundays and legal holidays. However, the City of Saratoga’s Noise Ordinance is more restrictive and limits construction activities to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Therefore, Project construction shall be limited to times specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance pursuant to Article 7-30 of the City’s Municipal Code. During Construction Construction Contractor Public Works Department 1130013.2 317 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:Community Development Department PREPARED BY:Nicole Johnson, Planner II SUBJECT:Village Design Guidelines Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and approve the updated illustrations,format, and proposed text amendments to the Village Design Guidelines. BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the current Saratoga Village Design Guidelines on January 2, 1991 to implement the design policies of the 1988 Saratoga Village Plan. On May 24, 2016 the City Council considered the results of a community outreach initiative that gathered the viewpoints and opinions of the community about the Village and authorized a work plan which was comprised of two Phases: •Phase I included the topics of Village Vision and Parking and Circulation. •Phase II included the topics of Village Design and Character and Opportunity Sites to be incorporated into the comprehensive update of the Village Design Guidelines. Phase I implementation of the Village Policy Update included the Village Parking Ordinance which was adopted by the City Council in December 2018 and the Village Vision statements which are being incorporated into the General Plan Update. The Village Design Guidelines update is the implementation of Phase II of the Village Policy Update. On August 16, 2017, the Council was presented with the draft policy statements for the Village Design Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission with input from the Heritage Preservation Commission. The City Council affirmed the Planning Commission’s recommendations and staff was directed to incorporate the approved policy statements (Attachment D)into a Village Design Guidelines document with updated graphics and format that is similar to the Residential Design Guidelines. 318 2 | P a g e DISCUSSION: In spring of 2018, the City contracted with planning consultant M-Group to assist with updating the illustrations of the Village Design Guidelines. The proposed document incorporates the Village policy statements and the expanded boundary of the Village as affirmed by the City Council. At their regular meeting on April 9, 2019 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the draft document provided recommendations, which include several amendments to the policy statements previously approved by City Council on August 16, 2017 (Attachment F). On May 8, 2019 the Planning Commission reviewed the updated Village Design Guidelines and considered the HPC’s recommendations (Attachment E). Two of the recommendations were omitted by the Planning Commission (items 5.3.8 and the comment on the illustration on page 24) and one was modified (item 9.1.2). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the document with amendments (Attachment C). The attached resolution adopts the Design Guidelines with the Planning Commission recommendations. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Village Designs Guidelines update is exempt from CEQA under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) which provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution Attachment B – Village Design Guidelines (Draft) Attachment C – Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments), Minutes and recommendations dated May 8, 2019 Attachment D – City Council Approved Policy Statements Attachment E – HPC Recommendations Attachment F –Village Design Guidelines, August 2012 319 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPT THE UPDATED VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES WHEREAS, The City Council adopted Saratoga Village Design Guidelines on January 2, 1991 to implement the design policies of the 1988 Saratoga Village Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2016 the City Council confirmed that the Village Specific Plan had served its useful life, and that future policy guiding land use, development and building modifications in the Village should be incorporated into the General Plan, Village Design Guidelines, and the City Code, and authorized a work plan to update the Village Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, On August 16, 2017, the Council was presented with the draft policy statements for the Village Design Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission with input from the Heritage Preservation Commission. The City Council affirmed the Planning Commission’s recommendations and staff was directed to incorporate the approved policy statements into a Village Design Guidelines document with updated graphics and format that is similar to the Residential Design Guidelines; WHEREAS, staff and consultants prepared proposed illustrations and on May 8, 2019 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed illustrations and recommended to the City Council that they be adopted together with minor text amendments; and WHEREAS, the attached document retains the text and polices approved on August 16, 2017 to add illustrations and makes minor text amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and specified in the staff report accompanying the resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby adopt the updated Village Design Guidelines. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 3 rd day of July 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Manny Cappello, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk 1134396.1 Attachment A 320 City of Saratoga Village Design Guidelines PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT APRIL 2019 Attachment B 321 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (to follow) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i 322 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 3 1 Introduction............................................................................1 2 Village Vision ...........................................................................2 3 Purpose................................................................................3 4 Land Use...............................................................................4 5 Architecture and Design..........................................................6 5.1 General Design Principles ........................................................................6 5.2 Storefronts ...............................................................................................10 5.3 Buiding Materials & Colors......................................................................13 5.4 Signage....................................................................................................14 6 Historic Preservation ..............................................................16 7 Circulation ...........................................................................18 8 Public Improvements ..............................................................19 9 Opportunity Sites ...................................................................20 9.1 14477 Big Basin Way (Currently “Rockin’ Kids”)........................................21 9.2 Saratoga Village Shopping Center (old Buy & Save Site)........................22 TABLE OF CONTENTS i iCITY o f S ARATO G A CALIF O R N IA1956 323 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 1 The Village has been the heart of Saratoga since its establishment circa 1850 and it remains a present reminder of the community’s identity that reflects its quaint charm and rural past. While the forces of growth and urbanization throughout Silicon Valley have resulted in more dense development throughout neighboring suburban downtown districts, Saratoga has intentionally resisted drastic changes to the Village that might diminish the historic context and unique characteristics the community embraces. 1 INTRODUCTION Oak Street 4th Stree t S a r a t o g a A ve n u e Los Gatos-Saratoga RoadBig Basin WayRecognizing the importance of protecting the Village’s rich history and its physical character, the City adopted the Saratoga Village Specific Plan in 1988 and the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines in 1992. In 2015, the City Council initiated a community outreach effort to tap the community’s views and its vision for the Village moving forward. The community outreach engaged more than 1000 residents as well as Village business and property owners. Using the information collected the community began the task of updating the policies that regulate design, development and land use in the Village to affirm the long-term goals for downtown Saratoga. Through a series of community study sessions with the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission, the process culminated with a clear set of standards and policy statements reflected in the Village Design Guidelines and Standards. 324 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 2 The “Saratoga Village” section of the Land Use Element of the General Plan provides a set of goals and policies that reflects the community’s vision for the Village. This vision is to foster a quaint, but vibrant shopping and restaurant district, intended to reflect the community’s small-town identity and its distinctive qualities. Equally as important, the Village serves as the center of community and civic activity intended to provide opportunities for public gathering and engagement. 2 VILLAGE VISION The Village should include businesses that appeal to residents and visitors alike with the ground floor space along Big Basin Way attracting a pedestrian oriented shopper. It is distinguished from other suburban downtowns by its exquisite natural setting, historic context and ambiance reminiscent of its roots when life was rural and uncomplicated. New development should take advantage of opportunities to create viable retail and/ or mixed-use buildings that complement the context and human scale of the downtown. Architectural styles should provide interest while complementing the eclectic nature of Village design. The Village is unique because of its natural setting, deep-seated history and connection to past eras. Furthering positive change and development over time while keeping its heritage intact will be accomplished through partnership between the City and Village stakeholders. By implementing the goals, policies and strategies outlined in this document, the City will ensure that the Village will continue to flourish as a vital and successful business district and as a primary venue for community engagement. 325 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 3 While the City Code contains the basic codified regulations for development in the Village, the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines provides the qualified criteria for the staff and the decision-making bodies to evaluate whether an application is in tune with the community’s 3 PURPOSE vision for the Village. Conversely, it provides Village property and business owners, developers, architects and realtors a set of community standards by which they can design and prepare their applications to best achieve City approval. 326 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 4 Design GuidelinesThe key to commercial success in a pedestrian oriented environment is to create an engaging experience for customers. This is done by having an uninterrupted stream of interesting storefronts and uses that captures the pedestrian’s eye enough to want to walk to the next tenant space. The formula includes a combination of interesting land uses with attractive storefront design and well-maintained public infrastructure. The land uses that best attract patrons are generally smart, attractive retail shops presented in an appealing and 4 LAND USE 4.1 The City strongly encourages the predominant use of ground floor commercial space fronting Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone for retail and restaurant uses. 4.2 Retail and pedestrian continuity shall be maintained along Big Basin Way. 4.3 Single purpose non-retail buildings and storefronts along the ground floor of Big Basin Way that are not conducive to sound retail principles are discouraged. 4.4 The City encourages an active streetscape that may include outdoor dining, public gathering spaces, interesting public art, and appropriate music venues. 4.4 Basin Way maintains an active streetscape. inviting manner, along with diverse restaurant choices. Office uses, while an asset to a commercial district, interrupt the “flow of interest” along ground floor street frontage. It is better located on side streets or second floors. While the market plays a significant role in deciding what businesses locate in the Village, through its policies and strategies Saratoga can help create an attractive environment to encourage and cultivate new retail business. 327 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 5 Design Guidelines 4.5 Office and residential uses are encouraged on the second floor and discouraged on the ground floor along Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone. 4.6 The City should look at expanding existing public spaces and facilitate the creation of new public plazas and gathering spaces to promote community interaction and passive enjoyment. 4.7 The City should explore opportunities to incorporate public art and music in the Village as a means to attract shoppers and invite civic engagement. 4.5 Incorporate office and residential uses on upper levels.4.6 Spaces between buildings can activate public 4 LAND USE spaces. *The term “retail” within the context of this document means the sale or rental of goods as defined under Section 15-06.560 of the City Code. 328 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 6 Design Guidelines 5.1.1 The architectural design and style of new construction shall compliment and contribute to the distinctive character and essence of the Village. Generic and uninspired elevations lacking detail and articulation will not be acceptable. 5.1.2 New construction shall consider the context, scale and character of surrounding structures. 5.1.3 Architecture should add interest and intrigue reflecting design excellence while complementing the eclectic makeup of the Village. 5.1.4 The predominant form and scale of the Village is one and two stories. New development and renovations shall be deferential to the measured skyline that protects view sheds of the hills and maintains a comparable and compatible place in the Village. 5.1 GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES 5 ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN Architecture and design standards create the framework for building, enhancing, and protecting the image and character of the Village that has endured for over 165 years. It is not the intent of these guidelines to impose strict architectural styles or specific design solutions, but rather to encourage visual harmony and compatibility in terms of the historical context and existing design fabric of the Village. The 5.1.4 A mixture of one- and two-story buildings. existing architectural context of the Village is an eclectic mix of old and new styles. Within the diversity of styles, these standards are intended to encourage finding the common threads that are the substance of what makes the Village special and incorporating those features in future development and changes to existing structures. 329 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 7 Design Guidelines 5.1 GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES 5.1.5 Roof forms should exhibit architectural simplicity, but should vary throughout the Village to create a visually interesting skyline. 5.1.6 Overly vertical rooflines that invade the picturesque views of the hillside and detract from the natural setting of the Village will not be allowed. 5.1.7 Roof mounted equipment shall be adequately screened from view. 5.1.8 Architectural elements and details shall be proportionate to the scale and style of the building. 5.1.9 Diversity of design is encouraged, but traditional, timeless architectural designs are preferred over populist trendy styles. 5.1.5 Roof forms exhibit architectural simplicity and vary throughout the Village. 5.1.8 Small details animate public spaces. 330 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 8 Design Guidelines 5.1.10 Overly stylistic architectural elements that tend to clutter elevations and storefronts are not in keeping with the Village theme. 5.1.11 Utility boxes and utilities shall be located in inconspicuous places whenever possible and shall be screened from view. 5.1.12 Explore developing a program to use utility boxes as opportunities for public art. 5.1.13 Applicants shall work with the City and Fire Department staff early in the development review process to design backflow devices and utilities to minimize their visibility.5.1.12 Public art opportunity.5.1.16 Rear entries are active spaces. 5.1.15 Provide a transition from the sidewalk into a building. 5.1 GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES 331 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 9 Design Guidelines 5.1.14 Architectural elements that are not functionally integral with the building, such as false mansard roofs, false cornices, etc., are not appropriate except in circumstances when restoring an historic building under the guidance and supervision of the Heritage Preservation Commission. 5.1.15 Where appropriate, new development on Big Basin Way shall consider deeper building setbacks to accommodate outdoor seating opportunities, public plazas, and public art. 5.1.16 Rear entries shall be given similar consideration as front entries with the use of awnings, decorative elements, and planter boxes to enhance the appearance and create an inviting quality. 5.1.17 Avoid large, blank walls by incorporating architectural elements and details, murals, trellises and vines, or other attractive techniques. 5.1.17 Murals can animate. 5.1 GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES 332 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 10 Design Guidelines 5.2.1 Well-designed storefronts include attractive entries, expansive display windows, a distinctive kick plate and a prominent horizontal band separating the first floor from the roof line or the second story. This is considered a typical “Main Street” approach to retail. 5.2.2 When constructing a new commercial building fronting Big Basin Way in the CH- 1 zone, the first-floor elevation shall be constructed with retail in mind defined by expansive display windows that ideally measure at least 10 feet in height from grade and no more than a 24-inch-high kick plate measured from grade. 5.2.3 Horizontal over vertical window patterns should be emphasized. 5.2.4 Window coverings such as awnings are encouraged to provide architectural interest as well as functional use such as weather protection. 5.2.1 “Main Street” retail format. 5.2.2 Expansive display windows. 5.2.4 Awnings provide unique character. 5.2 STOREFRONTS 333 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 11 Design Guidelines 5.2.5 Entries should consist of large, glass panels with vertical proportions to provide a sense of invitation and openness. 5.2.6 The use of well-maintained planter boxes, either freestanding or under windows are encouraged to add a splash of color or accent a storefront design. 5.2.5 Provide a sense of invitation and openness.5.2.6 Planter boxes shape the entry route. 5.2 STOREFRONTS 334 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 12 Design Guidelines 5.2 STOREFRONTS 5.2.7 Operable windows and sliding glass doors are encouraged at ground floor restaurants to spur outdoor dining and enhance streetscape liveliness. 5.2.8 Corner commercial buildings should continue storefront applications along the side street elevation including window treatments, kick plates and horizontal bands. 5.2.7 Outdoor dining can be an extension for the interior space. 5.2.8 Corner commercial building.335 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 13 Design Guidelines 5.3 BUILDING MATERIALS & COLORS Wood Mirrored Glass Natural Stone Plastic Natural Brick Painted Brick AUTHENTIC MATERIALS UNAUTHENTIC MATERIALS 5.3.7 Authentic materials help define the Design Guidelines 5.3.1 Larger, more expansive buildings should use more subdued color. Smaller buildings and those with more architectural detail may use brighter hues. 5.3.2 Coordinate the use of materials and colors with neighboring buildings to create a harmonious affect. 5.3.3 Base colors should be more neutral and subtle while brighter accent colors should be used for contrasting architectural details. Brick and stone should be left in their natural state and should not be painted. 5.3.4 Wood, Stucco, brick, tile, stone, and other natural materials should be the primary building materials on facades, with a mixture of these materials being optimum. 5.3.5 Buildings with identifiably historic features should highlight, not hide those features. 5.3.6 The use of materials and colors should be compatible and complimentary when more than one tenant is housed in the same building. The use of different colors to distinguish tenants, without a cohesive architectural design, can be visually disruptive. 5.3.7 The use of plastics, mirrored glass, painted brick or similar unauthentic materials are inappropriate. 5.3.8 Coordinate the color of tenant signage, window awnings and light fixtures with the building facades. Use deeper and brighter tones for these elements to create visual interest. 5.3.4 Natural materials should be used.Village character. 336 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 14 5.4 SIGNAGE Signs can go a long way toward enhancing or detracting from the attractiveness of the Village area. It is the intent of the sign guidelines to encourage signage that functions clearly to inform the shopper of business names and service, but does not detract from the architectural quality of individual buildings or from the streetscape as a whole. Sign size, type and location specifications are provided in the City’s sign ordinance under Article 15- 30 of the Saratoga City Code. The policies in this document are in addition to the City’s sign regulations. 5.4.1 Unique signage will help differentiate businesses.5.4.2 Similar materials.5.4.6 A “blade” sign extends over the public sidewalk.337 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 15 Sign does not obscure architectural details Sign does obscure architectural details 5.4.3 Appropriate placement for signs. 5.4 SIGNAGE Design Guidelines 5.4.1 Signage should be identifiable and create interest, but not spectacle. 5.4.2 The style and materials should bear a relationship to the building architecture. 5.4.3 Signs should not obscure architectural elements. 5.4.4 Roof signs are not permitted, including signs extending above eave lines. 5.4.5 While window signs are permitted, transparency must be maintained and it should not detract from the overall appearance of the storefront. 5.4.6 In addition to a wall sign, consider the use of tasteful projecting signs to attract the attention of pedestrians. 338 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 16 The Village represents the City’s historic origin and identity. Through various city policies and actions great effort has been taken to protect the historic context of the Village and those historic buildings that contribute to the fabric that reflects its history. Saratoga shall continue 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION to strive to protect its heritage including those contributing structures that enrich the experience of the Village and keep the community connected to its roots and sense of place. Design Guidelines 6.1 Pursuant to Section 13-10.040 of the City Code, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) shall review and forward a recommendation on changes to any structure listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory List. 6.2 The HPC will rely on the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Preservation, Restoration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Historic Resources as guidance for review of historic structures. 339 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 17 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Design Guidelines 6.3 New construction and improvements to structures not listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory List should respect, not detract from adjacent historic structures, or the overall historic context of the Village. 6.4 Encourage property owners of historic buildings in the Village to take advantage of the programs that offer financial incentives to assist in the restoration, rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures. 6.5 Buildings with identifiably historic features should highlight, not hide those features. 340 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 18 Design GuidelinesEffective circulation is essential to promoting a successful Village. Given the physical constraints and the limited roadway options available for navigating through the Village, there are challenges to providing effective circulation 7 CIRCULATION where vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians can coexist in an effective and safe environment. The City is committed to providing a safe and manageable transportation system in the Village for all modes of mobility. 7.1 The City is committed to providing effective and safe circulation through the Village for cars, bicycles and pedestrians. 7.2 The City shall pursue to completion the vehicle turnabout planned for the southern terminus of Big Basin Way to improve vehicular circulation. 7.3 The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan shall identify specific policy for the Village to ensure that there is a strategy for safe and efficient bicycle and pedestrian circulation. 7.4 The City will strive to minimize driveway curb cuts along Big Basin Way to lessen the disruption of pedestrian traffic flow and improve pedestrian safety. 7.4 Minimize driveway curb cuts along Big Basin Way.341 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 19 Over the last 25 years, the City has built an attractive and functional public infrastructure system throughout the Village primarily funded through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The public infrastructure strategy includes specific pavement patterns for streets, sidewalks, crosswalks, and public plazas. There are also distinctive street furniture styles, landscape planters, street trees, street lights, 8 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS bike racks, directories, and newspaper racks that improve the functional and pleasurable use of the Village. These public improvements are not only necessary for the safe navigation of the Village, but also to make the shopper’s experience more enjoyable. 8.3 A complex range of paving materials. Design Guidelines 8.1 The City is committed to maintaining the public infrastructure throughout the Village to provide safe and convenient use of the public right-of-way, as well as to ensure that the visual experience of public improvements is pleasant, enjoyable and consistent. 8.2 Applicants approved for new construction or business operation within the Village may be required to make public improvements associated with their land use. The public improvements will be required subject to the specifications and approval of the Public Works Director. 8.3 Sidewalk treatment including pavement pattern, street trees and similar public improvements along the west side of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road within the Village boundary shall be consistent with the sidewalk improvements along Big Basin Way. 342 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 20 9.2 SARATOGA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER (OLD BUY & SAVE SITE) 9.2 Saratoga Village Shopping Center 9.1 14477 Big Basin Way B ig B a sin WayBig Basin WayBig Basin Way9 OPPORTUNITY SITES 9.1 14477 BIG BASIN WAY (CURRENTLY “ROCKIN’ KIDS”) 343 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 21 Design Guidelines The site contains a one-story single-family residence converted to commercial use. The converted residence stands alone in the CH-1 zone among conventional commercial buildings. The building sits back off the street contrary to traditional “main street” format which puts buildings on the street appealing to a pedestrian-oriented shopper. 9 OPPORTUNITY SITES 9.1 14477 BIG BASIN WAY 9.1.1 “Main Street” storefront. The City would like to see this property redeveloped in a manner that better utilizes the property with a development that fits into the commercial context of the Village. Therefore, in addition to the policies in this document that apply Village wide, the following guidelines apply specifically to this property. 9.1.1 The redevelopment of the site shall place a commercial building on the street in a pedestrian oriented design and generally considered a “main street” format. 9.1.2 The new development should be in character with the scale and pattern of prevalent building elevations in the immediate vicinity and along Big Basin Way. 9.1.3 The Big Basin Way driveway to the property shall be eliminated and parking access should be via Parking District #3. 9.1.4 Incorporate an appropriate transition to the adjacent walkway to the east which provides pedestrian access to the Parking District #3 lot and adjacent commercial buildings. 344 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 22 The Saratoga Village Shopping Center located on the south side of Big Basin Way east of Third Street was developed as a strip mall in 1955. The property has had limited commercial success since the loss of the Buy and Save market and is challenged with businesses being set back off the street in a “strip mall” pattern, while located within in a downtown pedestrian-oriented business district. 9.2 SARATOGA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER The site is roughly 1.25 acres with a street frontage in excess of 350 feet representing the largest development site in the Village. Over the years, there have been discussions initiated about what an appropriate redevelopment project might look like on this site. However, there has been no community consensus. 9.2.1 “Main Street” approach to retail. 9 OPPORTUNITY SITES Design Guidelines 9.2.1 Redevelopment of the Saratoga Village Shopping Center site should take a “main street” approach placing storefronts on the street that relate to the pedestrian in a multi-tenant and mixed-use format. 9.2.2 The development should remain in character with the scale and pattern of prevalent building elevations in the immediate vicinity and along Big Basin Way. 345 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 23 9 OPPORTUNITY SITES Given the prominent location of the site, its size, the length of street frontage it occupies on Big Basin Way, and the opportunity it presents to invigorate the east end of the Village, site specific parameters are being provided to help define City expectations. Due to its property size and its linear street frontage, careful consideration and skillful design will be required to ensure any new development has proper context and compatibility with the fabric of the Village. Therefore, in addition to the Village wide policies stated in this document, the following policies shall be considered with respect to the Saratoga Village Shopping Center. Design Guidelines 9.2.3 The City encourages retail and restaurant uses on the ground floor and seeks to maximize the amount of ground floor commercial square footage consistent with best practices regarding tenant space depth, width and storefront height. The City should allow active space in front for uses, such as outdoor dining. 9.2.4 The street frontage of the property is exceedingly longer than the typical city block in the Village. Given this unusually expansive street frontage, a continuous, monolithic building elevation along Big Basin Way would be inconsistent with the Village development pattern. 9.2.5 To avoid the appearance of a continuous building mass, the use of distinguishing architectural design schemes, variations in height, building materials, colors, textures and storefront variety should be incorporated, while still maintaining a unified architectural theme. 9.2.3 Retail and restaurant uses on the ground floor. 346 City of Saratoga • VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES • Public Review Draft - April 2019 24 9.2.6 Public gathering places connect the retail environment. 9 OPPORTUNITY SITES Design Guidelines 9.2.6 The project should incorporate a public gathering place or spaces to help encourage community activity and interaction. This public space could be designed to help create a break in the building mass. The public/private function and use of this space is to be determined in consultation and collaboration with the City. 9.2.7 The project is expected to provide the required on-site parking. 9.2.8 During certain peak hours and days, the Saratoga-Los Gatos Blvd./Big Basin Way intersection experiences high levels of congestion affecting traffic circulation in the Village. Given the size of the project site and its proximity to that intersection, the ingress and egress from the project site should be designed and located so as to not exacerbate traffic circulation in the area. 347 Attachment C REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review the updated illustrations and format of the Village Design Guidelines and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. BACKGROUND On May 24, 2016 the City Council considered the results of a community outreach initiative that gathered the viewpoints and opinions of the community about the Village. After reviewing the results, the Council confirmed that the Village Specific Plan had served its useful life, and that future policy guiding land use, development and building modifications in the Village should be incorporated into the General Plan, Village Design Guidelines, and the City Code. The Council authorized a work plan which was comprised of two Phases: • Phase I included the topics of Village Vision and Parking and Circulation. • Phase II included the topics of Village Design and Character and Opportunity Sites to be incorporated into the comprehensive update of the Village Design Guidelines. Phase I implementation of the Village Policy Update includes the Village Parking Ordinance which was adopted by the City Council in December 2018 and the Village Vision statements which are being incorporated into the General Plan Update. The Village Design Guidelines update is the implementation of Phase II of the Village Policy Update. Between 2016 and 2017 the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission held a series of community study sessions to discuss updates in the areas of the Village Policy Update. On August 16, 2017, the Council was presented with the draft policy statements for the Village Design Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission with input from the Heritage Preservation Commission. The City Council affirmed the Planning Commission’s recommendations and staff was directed to incorporate the approved policy statements into a Village Design Guidelines document with updated graphics and format that is similar to the Residential Design Guidelines. Meeting Date: May 8, 2019 Application: Village Design Guidelines/MISC19-0028 Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Nicole Johnson, Planner II 348 Report to the Planning Commission Village Design Guidelines Update- Application # MISC19-0028 May 8, 2019 Page | 2 DISCUSSION In spring of 2018, the City contracted with planning consultant M-Group to assist with updating the illustrations of the Village Design Guidelines. The proposed document incorporates the Village policy statements and the expanded boundary of the Village as affirmed by the City Council. At their meeting on July 11, 2018, the Planning Commission was presented with sample graphics for the Village Design Guidelines. The proposed illustrations drew on all the categories of policy text that would become the chapters of the document. Commissioner Walia volunteered to work with staff and the consultants and provide feedback. There were two (2) subsequent meetings, in August 2018 and November 2018 with the consultants, staff and Commissioner Walia to review the proposed graphics. Drawings were developed to touch on all chapters of the document, although a heavier emphasis was placed on the subsections of Chapter 5, Architecture and Design, in part because the policy guidance provided by the Council is weighted somewhat more toward specific design topics. Heritage Preservation Commission Review At their regular meeting on April 9, 2019 the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the draft document, created a sub-committee consisting of two members and provided recommendations, which include a number of amendments to the policy statements previously approved by City Council on August 16, 2017 and comment on one illustration (Attachment 5). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Village Designs Guidelines update is exempt from CEQA under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) which provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Village Design Guidelines (Draft) 2. City Council Report (without attachment 3) and Minutes from the August 16, 2017 meeting 3. City Council Approved Policy Statements (Saratoga Village Design Guidelines) 4. Village Design Guidelines, August 2012 5. Comments from the Heritage Preservation Commission 349 APPROVED MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2019 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Ahuja called the Planning Commission Regular Meeting to order in the Civic Theater, Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL mmissioners Leonard Lucas Pastuszka, Tina APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of May 8, 2019 meeting. WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 8, 2019 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CHANGE AGENDA ORDER, MOVING ITEM 2.1 TO FOLLOW ITEM 1.1. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 1. NEW BUSINESS 1.1. Proposed Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2019/2020 Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 19-013 finding the proposed FY 19/20 CIP projects conform to the General Plan. WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-013, FINDING THE PROPOSED FY19/20 CIP PROJECTS CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLAN. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 3 PRESENT: Chair Sunil Ahuja, Vice Chair Razi Mohiuddin, Co Almalech, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Anjali Kausar, ABSENT: Walia None ALSO PRESENT: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Nicole Johnson, Planner 350 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1. Application APPC19-0001; 20740 Canyon View Drive (503-22-048); Peter Fu and Jennie Lee. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.19-011 upholding staff’s determination that the scope of work for the project is a demolition of the existing home pursuant to City Code Section 15-06.195 and requires Administrative Design Review pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.065. KAUSAR/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-011, DENYING APPEAL APPLCATION NO. APPC19-0001 AND UPHOLDING STAFF’S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS A DEMOLITION. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 1. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Kookie Fitzsimmons recused herself from item 1.2, stating a conflict of interest. 1.2 Update of Village Design Guidelines Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the updated illustrations and format of the Village Design Guidelines and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. ALMALECH/KAUSAR MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE UPDATED VILLAGE DESIGN GUILDLINES, AS AMENDED, FOR CONSIDERATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, KAUSAR, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: FITZSIMMONS. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Anjali Kausar recused herself from item 2.2, stating a conflict of interest. 2.2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA19-0002 Recommended Action: Approve Resolution No.19-010 recommending the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Section 15-30.135 of the Saratoga Municipal Code regarding temporary off-site signs in residential districts. WALIA/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO ADPOT RESOLUTION NO. 19-010, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTION 15-30.135. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, PASTUSZKA, Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 3 351 WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: KAUSAR. DIRECTOR ITEMS None. COMMISSION ITEMS Commission agreed to not have a Summer recess. Chair Ahuja stated Brookside Club had sent a note thanking the Commission and City Staff. Commissioner Fitzsimmons thanked everyone for supporting the Rotary Art Show. ADJOURNMENT WALIA/ FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:35 PM. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, AHUJA, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS, PASTUSZKA, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Assistant City of Saratoga Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 3 of 3 352 Planning Commission Recommendations to the City Council (May 8, 2019 PC meeting) Page No. Item No. Existing Text (approved by City Council, 8/16/17) PC Recommended Text Changes 4 4.3 Single purpose non-retail buildings and storefronts along the ground floor of Big Basin Way that are not conducive to sound retail principles are discouraged. Single purpose non-retail buildings and storefronts Storefronts and single purpose non-retail buildings along the ground floor of Big Basin Way that are not conducive to sound retail principles are discouraged. 8 5.1.12 Explore developing a program to use utility boxes as opportunities for public art. Explore developing a program to use Uutility boxes as may be used as opportunities for public art. (The Saratoga Utility Box Art program is currently in place.) 18 7.2 The City shall pursue to completion the vehicle turnabout planned for the southern terminus of Big Basin Way to improve vehicular circulation. This turnaround project was completed by Public Works in September 2018. (Project completed. Consider removing this policy) 21 Body of text Therefore, in addition to the policies in this document that apply Village wide, the following guidelines apply specifically to this property. Therefore, in addition to the policies in this document that apply Village-wide, the following Design gGuidelines 9.1.1 through 9.1.4 apply specifically to this property. 21 9.1.2 The new development should be in character with the scale and pattern of prevalent building elevations in the immediate vicinity and along Big Basin Way. The Nnew development should be in character with the scale and pattern of prevalent building elevations in the immediate vicinity and along Big Basin Way. 21 9.1.4 Incorporate an appropriate transition to the adjacent walkway to the east which provides pedestrian access to the Parking District #3 lot and adjacent commercial buildings. New development should incorporate an appropriate transition to the adjacent walkway to the east which provides pedestrian access to the Parking District #3 lot and adjacent commercial buildings. 22 Body of text The site is roughly 1.25 acres with a street frontage in excess of 350 feet representing the largest development site in the Village. The site is roughly 1.251.02 acres with a street frontage in excess of 350 235 feet representing the largest development site in the Village. 353 (Property size and frontage data corrected) 23 Body of text Therefore, in addition to the Village wide policies stated in this document, the following policies shall be considered with respect to the Saratoga Village Shopping Center. Therefore, in addition to the Village-wide policies stated in this document, the following policies 9.2.1 through 9.2.8 shall be considered with respect to the Saratoga Village Shopping Center. 354 Policy Statements Saratoga Village Design Guidelines Introduction The Village has been the heart of Saratoga since its establishment circa 1850 and it remains a present reminder of the community’s identity that reflects its quaint charm and rural past. While the forces of growth and urbanization throughout Silicon Valley have resulted in more dense development throughout neighboring suburban downtown districts, Saratoga has intentionally resisted drastic changes to the Village that might diminish the historic context and unique characteristics the community embraces. Recognizing the importance of protecting the Village’s rich history and its physical character, the City adopted the Saratoga Village Specific Plan in 1988 and the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines in 1992. In 2015, the City Council initiated a community outreach effort to tap the community’s views and its vision for the Village moving forward. The community outreach engaged more than 1000 residents as well as Village business and property owners. Using the information collected the community began the task of updating the policies that regulates design, development and land use in the Village to affirm the long term goals for downtown Saratoga. Through a series of community study sessions with the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission, the process culminated with a clear set of standards and policy statements reflected in the Village Design Guidelines and Standards. Village Vision The “Saratoga Village” section of the Land Use Element of the General Plan provides a set of goals and policies that reflects the community’s vision for the Village. This vision is to foster a quaint, but vibrant shopping and restaurant district, intended to reflect the community’s small town identity and its distinctive qualities. Equally as important, the Village serves as the center of community and civic activity intended to provide opportunities for public gathering and engagement. The Village should include businesses that appeal to residents and visitors alike with the ground floor space along Big Basin Way attracting a pedestrian oriented shopper. It is distinguished from other suburban downtowns by its exquisite natural setting, historic context and ambiance reminiscent of its roots when life was rural and uncomplicated. Attachment D 355 New development should take advantage of opportunities to create viable retail and/or mixed use buildings that compliment the context and human scale of the downtown. Architectural styles should provide interest while complementing the eclectic nature of Village design. The Village is unique because of its natural setting, deep-seated history and connection to past eras. Furthering positive change and development over time while keeping its heritage intact will be accomplished through partnership between the City and Village stakeholders. By implementing the goals, policies and strategies outlined in this document, the City will ensure that the Village will continue to flourish as a vital and successful l business district and as a primary venue for community engagement. Purpose While the City Code contains the basic codified regulations for development in the Village, the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines provides the qualified criteria for the staff and the decision making bodies to evaluate whether an application is in tune with the community’s vision for the Village. Conversely, it provides Village property and business owners, developers, architects and realtors a set of community standards by which they can design and prepare their applications to best achieve City approval. Land Use The key to commercial success in a pedestrian oriented environment is to create an engaging experience for customers. This is done by having an uninterrupted stream of interesting storefronts and uses that captures the pedestrian’s eye enough to want to walk to the next tenant space. The formula includes a combination of interesting land uses with attractive storefront design and well maintained public infrastructure. The land uses that best attract patrons are generally smart, attractive retail shops presented in an appealing and inviting manner, along with diverse restaurant choices. Offices uses, while an asset to a commercial district, interrupts the “flow of interest” along ground floor street frontage due to the nature of its business. It is better located on side streets or second floors. While the market plays a significant role in deciding what businesses locate in the Village, through its policies and strategies Saratoga can help create an attractive environment to encourage and cultivate new retail business. • The City strongly encourages the predominant use of ground floor commercial space fronting Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone for retail and restaurant uses. • Retail and pedestrian continuity shall be maintained along Big Basin Way. • Single purpose non-retail buildings and storefronts along the ground floor of Big Basin Way that are not conducive to sound retail principles are discouraged. 356 • The City encourages an active streetscape that may include outdoor dining, public gathering spaces, interesting public art, and appropriate music venues. • Office and residential uses are encouraged on the second floor and discouraged on the ground floor along Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone. • The City should look at expanding existing public spaces and facilitate the creation of new public plazas and gathering spaces to promote community interaction and passive enjoyment. • The City should explore opportunities to incorporate public art and music in the Village as a means to attract shoppers and invite civic engagement. *The term “retail” within the context of this document means the sale or rental of goods as defined under Section 15-06.560 of the City Code. Architecture and Design: Architecture and design standards create the framework for building, enhancing, and protecting the image and character of the Village that has endured for over 165 years. It is not the intent of these guidelines to impose strict architectural styles or specific design solutions, but rather to encourage visual harmony and compatibility in terms of the historical context and existing design fabric of the Village. The existing architectural context of the Village is an eclectic mix of old and new styles. Within the diversity of styles, these standards are intended to encourage finding the common threads that are the substance of what makes the Village special and incorporating those features in future development and changes to existing structures. General Design Principles: • The architectural design and style of new construction shall compliment and contribute to the distinctive character and essence of the Village. Generic and uninspired elevations lacking detail and articulation will not be acceptable. • New construction shall consider the context, scale and character of surrounding structures. • Architecture should add interest and intrigue reflecting design excellence while complementing the eclectic make up of the Village. • The predominant form and scale of the Village is one and two stories. New development and renovations shall be deferential to the measured skyline that protects view sheds of the hills and maintains a comparable and compatible place in the Village. 357 • Roof forms should exhibit architectural simplicity, but should vary throughout the Village to create a visually interesting skyline. • Overly vertical rooflines that invade the picturesque views of the hillside and detract from the natural setting of the Village will not be allowed. • Roof mounted equipment shall be adequately screened from view. • Architectural elements and details shall be proportionate to the scale and style of the building. • Diversity of design is encouraged, but traditional, timeless architectural designs are preferred over populist trendy styles. • Overly stylistic architectural elements that tend to clutter elevations and storefronts are not in keeping with the Village theme. • Utility boxes and utilities shall be located in inconspicuous places whenever possible and shall be screened from view. • Explore developing a program to use utility boxes as opportunities for public art. • Applicants shall work with the City and Fire Department staff early in the development review process to design backflow devices and utilities to minimize their visibility. • Architectural elements that are not functionally integral with the building, such as false mansard roofs, false cornices, etc., are not appropriate except in circumstances when restoring an historic building under the guidance and supervision of the Heritage Preservation Commission. • Where appropriate, new development on Big Basin Way shall consider deeper building setbacks to accommodate outdoor seating opportunities, public plazas, and public art. • Rear entries shall be given similar consideration as front entries with the use of awnings, decorative elements, and planter boxes to enhance the appearance and create an inviting quality. • Avoid large, blank walls by incorporating architectural elements and details, murals, trellises and vines, or other attractive techniques. 358 Storefronts: • Well designed storefronts include attractive entries, expansive display windows, a distinctive kick plate and a prominent horizontal band separating the first floor from the roof line or the second story. This is considered a typical “Main Street” approach to retail. (Illustration) • When constructing a new commercial building fronting Big Basin Way in the CH- 1 zone, the first floor elevation shall be constructed with retail in mind defined by expansive display windows that ideally measure at least 10 feet in height from grade and no more than a 24 inch high kick plate measured from grade. • Horizontal over vertical window patterns should be emphasized. (Illustration) • Window coverings such as awnings are encouraged to provide architectural interest as well as functional use such as weather protection. • Entries should consist of large, glass panels with vertical proportions to provide a sense of invitation and openness. • The use of well maintained planter boxes, either freestanding or under windows are encouraged to add a splash of color or accent a storefront design. • Operable windows and sliding glass doors are encouraged at ground floor restaurants to spur outdoor dining and enhance streetscape liveliness. • Corner commercial buildings should continue storefront applications along the side street elevation including window treatments, kick plates and horizontal bands. Building Materials & Colors • Larger, more expansive buildings should use more subdued color. Smaller buildings and those with more architectural detail may use brighter hues. • Coordinate the use of materials and colors with neighboring buildings to create a harmonious affect. • Base colors should be more neutral and subtle while brighter accent colors should be used for contrasting architectural details. Brick and stone should be left in their natural state and should not be painted. • Wood, Stucco, brick, tile, stone, and other natural materials should be the primary building materials on facades, with a mixture of these materials being optimum. 359 • Buildings with identifiably historic features should highlight, not hide those features. • The use of materials and colors should be compatible and complimentary when more than one tenant is housed in the same building. The use of different colors to distinguish tenants, without a cohesive architectural design, can be visually disruptive. • The use of plastics, mirrored glass, painted brick or similar unauthentic materials are inappropriate. • Coordinate the color of tenant signage, window awnings and light fixtures with the building facades. Use deeper and brighter tones for these elements to create visual interest. Signage: Signs can go a long way toward enhancing or detracting from the attractiveness of the Village area. It is the intent of the sign guidelines to encourage signage that functions clearly to inform the shopper of business names and service, but does not detract from the architectural quality of individual buildings or from the streetscape as a whole. Sign size, type and location specifications are provided in the City’s sign ordinance under Article 15-30 of the Saratoga City Code. The policies in this document are in addition to the City’s sign regulations • Signage should be identifiable and create interest, but not spectacle. • The style and materials should bear a relationship to the building architecture. • Signs should not obscure architectural elements. • Roof signs are not permitted, including signs extending above eave lines. • While window signs are permitted, transparency must be maintained and it should not detract from the overall appearance of the storefront. • In a addition to a wall sign, consider the use of tasteful projecting signs to attract the attention of pedestrians 360 Historic Preservation: The Village represents the City’s historic origin and identity. Through various city policies and actions great effort has been taken to protect the historic context of the Village and those historic buildings that contribute to the fabric that reflects its history. Saratoga shall continue to strive to protect its heritage including those contributing structures that enrich the experience of the Village and keep the community connected to its roots and sense of place. • Pursuant to Section 13-10.040 of the City Code, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) shall review and forward a recommendation on changes to any structure listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory List. • The HPC will rely on the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Preservation, Restoration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Historic Resources as guidance for review of historic structures. • New construction and improvements to structures not listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory List should respect, not detract from adjacent historic structures, or the overall historic context of the Village. • Encourage property owners of historic buildings in the Village to take advantage of the programs that offer financial incentives to assist in the restoration, rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures. • Buildings with identifiably historic features should highlight, not hide those features. Circulation Effective circulation is essential to promoting a successful Village. Given the physical constraints and the limited roadway options available for navigating through the Village, there are challenges to providing effective circulation where vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians can coexist in an effective and safe environment. The City is committed to providing a safe and manageable transportation system in the Village for all modes of mobility. • The City is committed to providing effective and safe circulation through the Village for cars, bicycles and pedestrians. • The City shall pursue to completion the vehicle turn about planned for the southern terminus of Big Basin Way to improve vehicular circulation. 361 • The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan shall identify specific policy for the Village to ensure that there is a strategy for safe and efficient bicycle and pedestrian circulation. • The City will strive to minimize driveway curb cuts along Big Basin Way to lessen the disruption of pedestrian traffic flow and improve pedestrian safety. Public Improvements Over the last 25 years, the City has built an attractive and functional public infrastructure system throughout the Village primarily funded through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The public infrastructure strategy includes specific pavement patterns for streets, sidewalks, crosswalks, and public plazas. There are also distinctive street furniture styles, landscape planters, street trees, street lights, bike racks, directories, and newspaper racks that improve the functional and pleasurable use of the Village. These public improvements are not only necessary for the safe navigation of the Village, but also to make the shopper’s experience more enjoyable. • The City is committed to maintaining the public infrastructure throughout the Village to provide safe and convenient use of the public right-of-way, as well as to ensure that the visual experience of public improvements is pleasant, enjoyable and consistent. • Applicants approved for new construction or business operation within the Village may be required to make public improvements associated with their land use. The public improvements will be required subject to the specifications and approval of the Public Works Director. • Sidewalk treatment including pavement pattern, street trees and similar public improvements along the west side of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road within the Village boundary shall be consistent with the sidewalk improvements along Big Basin Way. Opportunity Sites Saratoga Village Shopping Center (old Buy & Save Site) The Saratoga Village Shopping Center located on the south side of Big Basin Way east of Third Street was developed as a strip mall in 1955. The property has had limited commercial success since the loss of the Buy and Save market and is challenged with businesses being set back off the street in a “strip mall” pattern, while located within in a downtown pedestrian oriented business district. 362 The site is roughly 1.25 acres with a street frontage in excess of 350 feet representing the largest development site in the Village. Over the years, there have been discussions initiated about what an appropriate redevelopment project might look like on this site. However, there has been no community consensus. Given the prominent location of the site, its size, the length of street frontage it occupies on Big Basin Way, and the opportunity it presents to invigorate the east end of the Village, site specific parameters are being provided to help define City expectations. Due to its property size and its linear street frontage, careful consideration and skillful design will be required to ensure any new development has proper context and compatibility with the fabric of the Village. Therefore, in addition to the Village wide policies stated in this document, the following policies shall be considered with respect to the Saratoga Village Shopping Center. 1. Redevelopment of the Saratoga Village Shopping Center site should take a “main street” approach placing storefronts on the street that relate to the pedestrian in a multi-tenant and mixed use format. 2. The development should remain in character with the scale and pattern of prevalent building elevations in the immediate vicinity and along Big Basin Way. 3. The City encourages retail and restaurant uses on the ground floor and seeks to maximize the amount of ground floor commercial square footage consistent with best practices regarding tenant space depth, width and storefront height. The city should allow active space in front for uses such as outdoor dining. 4. The street frontage of the property is exceedingly longer than the typical city block in the Village. Given this unusually expansive street frontage, a continuous, monolithic building elevation along Big Basin Way would be inconsistent with the Village development pattern. 5. To avoid the appearance of a continuous building mass, the use of distinguishing architectural design schemes, variations in height, building materials, colors, textures and storefront variety should be incorporated, while still maintaining a unified architectural theme. 6. The project should incorporate a public gathering place or spaces to help encourage community activity and interaction. This public space could be designed to help create a break in the building mass. The public/private function and use of this space is to be determined in consultation and collaboration with the City. 7. The project is expected to provide the required on-site parking. 363 8. During certain peak hours and days, the Saratoga-Los Gatos Blvd./Big Basin Way intersection experiences high levels of congestion affecting traffic circulation in the Village. Given the size of the project site and its proximity to that intersection, the ingress and egress from the project site should be designed and located so as to not exacerbate traffic circulation in the area. 14477 Big Basin Way (Currently “Rockin Kids”) The site contains a one story single family residence converted to commercial use. The converted residence stands alone in the CH-1 zone among conventional commercial buildings. The building sits back off the street contrary to traditional “main street” format which puts buildings on the street appealing to a pedestrian oriented shopper. The City would like to see this property redeveloped in a manner that better utilizes the property with a development that fits into the commercial context of the Village. Therefore, in addition to the policies in this document that apply Village wide, the following guidelines apply specifically to this property. 1. The redevelopment of the site shall place a commercial building on the street in a pedestrian oriented design and generally considered a “main street” format. 2. The new development should be in character with the scale and pattern of prevalent building elevations in the immediate vicinity and along Big Basin Way. 3. The Big Basin Way driveway to the property shall be eliminated and parking access should be via Parking District #3. 4. Incorporate an appropriate transition to the adjacent walkway to the east which provides pedestrian access to the Parking District #3 lot and adjacent commercial buildings. 364 HPC Recommendations to Planning Commission (April 9, 2019 HPC meeting) Page No. Item No. Existing Text (approved by City Council, 8/16/17) HPC Recommended Text Changes 4 4.3 Single purpose non-retail buildings and storefronts along the ground floor of Big Basin Way that are not conducive to sound retail principles are discouraged. Single purpose non-retail buildings and storefronts Storefronts and single purpose buildings along the ground floor of Big Basin Way that are not conducive to sound retail principles are discouraged. (HPC is asking for clarification if the intent was for single purpose non-retail buildings and single purpose storefronts.) 8 5.1.12 Explore developing a program to use utility boxes as opportunities for public art. Explore developing a programto use Uutility boxes as may be used as opportunities for public art. (The Saratoga Utility Box Art program is currently in place.) 13 5.3.8 Coordinate the color of tenant signage, window awnings and light fixtures with the building facades. Use deeper and brighter tones for these elements to create visual interest. Coordinate Tthe color of tenant Signage, window awnings and light fixtures shall coordinate with the building facades. Use deeper and brighter tones for these elements to create visual interest. 18 7.2 The City shall pursue to completion the vehicle turnabout planned for the southern terminus of Big Basin Way to improve vehicular circulation. This turnaround project was completed by Public Works in September 2018. (Project completed. Consider removing this policy) 21 Body of text Therefore, in addition to the policies in this document that apply Village wide, the following guidelines apply specifically to this property. Therefore, in addition to the policies in this document that apply Village-wide, the following Design gGuidelines 9.1.1 through 9.1.4 apply specifically to this property. 21 9.1.2 The new development should be in character with the scale and pattern of prevalent building elevations in the immediate vicinity and along Big Basin Way. The Nnew development shall should be in character with the scale and pattern of prevalent building elevations in the immediate vicinity and along Big Basin Way. 21 9.1.4 Incorporate an appropriate transition to the adjacent walkway to the east which provides pedestrian access to the Parking District #3 lot and adjacent commercial buildings. New development should incorporate an appropriate transition to the adjacent walkway to the east which provides pedestrian access to the Parking District #3 lot and adjacent commercial buildings. Attachment E 365 HPC Recommendations to Planning Commission (April 9, 2019 HPC meeting) 22 Body of text The site is roughly 1.25 acres with a street frontage in excess of 350 feet representing the largest development site in the Village. The site is roughly 1.251.02 acres with a street frontage in excess of 350 235 feet representing the largest development site in the Village. (Property size and frontage data corrected) 23 Body of text Therefore, in addition to the Village wide policies stated in this document, the following policies shall be considered with respect to the Saratoga Village Shopping Center. Therefore, in addition to the Village-wide policies stated in this document, the following policies 9.2.1 through 9.2.8 shall be considered with respect to the Saratoga Village Shopping Center. Page No. Item Comment from HPC Comment/response from the Consultant 24 Illustration The ground surface material looks like cobblestone, and there is no cobblestone in the Village. The Illustration is an aspirational image. Pages 21-24 are speaking of new development that could occur on the opportunity sites, this illustration depicts what would be keeping with the policies developed by City Council. 366 Saratoga Village DESIGN GUIDELINES Attachment F 367 ,,".' c • ADOPTED BY SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ON 8ANUARY 2, 1991 CITY COUNCIL- F.L. Stutzma.n, Mayor-_ Willerri Kohler, Vice Mayor' Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Victor Monia VILLAGE DESIGN TASK FORCE Steve Benzing Bill Carlson Otto Crawford . Jan Harris . Jack Hickling Sharon Landsness Jacki~ Welch PROJECT STAFF' Harry Peacock, City Manager Stephen Emslie, Planning Director- Valerie Young,~ Associate Planner James Walgren,. Associate Planner TsviaAdar, Associate Planner . -I: . '". , SpeCial thanks is given to former Councilmembers and Village Jask Force and' Beautification Committee members for assi~tanc~' on this project ~ .' . Spacial thanks, is also given to West Valley College Departmenf of Architecture faculty and students. . / 368 ,.. • CONTENTS Introduction 1 Goals 2 Pedestrian Environment 3 Crosswalk and Paving 4 Sidewalks 5 Directories 6 Street Furniture 9 Bicycle Facilties 18 Architecture 19 Architectural Style and Building Form 20 Height, Width and Setback 21 Roof Forms 23 Colors, Materials and Textures 24 Storefronts 26 Rear Entrances 29 Opportunity Sites 30 Landscaping 37 Street Tree Program 38 Flower Boxes 39 Signage 41 Sign Location and Area 42 Types of Signs 43 Materials, Colors and Illumination 45 Banners and Murals 46 369 INTRODUCTION The Saratoga village Plan was adopted by the City Council in May of 1988. The Plan established land use, zoning, circulation, parking and design policies aimed at preserving and improving the small-scale pedestrian character of the Saratoga Village, which is the town's historic commercial core located along Big Basin. To implement the design policies of the Village Plan, the City Council established the Village Design Task Force (VDTF) to assist with tne preparation of the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines. The seven member Task Force had representatives from the Planning and Heritage commissions, Village Association, property owners, architectural profession, and a member of the original Village Beautification committee. During the course of a year, from september 1988 to September 1989, the VDTF met with planning staff to develop the specific design guidelines. The guidelines were then reviewed by the Planning Commission at meetings with the Village Association and property owners, and ultimately adopted by the City council on January 2, 1991. The four major sections of the Village Design Guidelines are: 1) Pedestrian Environment; 2) Architecture; 3) Landscaping; and 4) Signage. Each section uses both text and diagrams to provide specific design guidance to property owners, merchants, developers, and designers who wish to build new structures or make improvements to existing Village structures. The Design Guidelines also provide a framework for the Planning Commiss on, City Council and City staff in reviewing the various applications that involve Village properties. The Guidelines do not impose specific styles or narrow choices of forms and materials. Rather, they clarify the design intent and permissible framework for development and renovation in the Village core. The Saratoga Village Design Guidelines alone will not ensure that future development is in context with the Village Proper and sensitive application of the guidelines wil require the collective and concerted efforts of both the publ and private sectors. These efforts will involve financial and decision- making commitments from the City, the Village Association and private property owners. Where appropriate, the assignment of responsibility for the implementation of individual design projects in the Village has been noted in the text. 370 GOALS The goals of the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines are: • To encourage new construction and renovation of existing buildings that is compatible with adjacent buildings, with the Village design context as a whole, and as examples of design excellence. • To reserve street frontages for commercial buildings and uninterrupted pedestrian flow. • To develop buildings, facilities Way. all parking facilities to the rear of with minimal visual exposure of parking and vehicular ingress-egress from Big Basin • To preserve the existing buildings-of historical significance. • To create usable, attractive pedestrian open spaces wherever possible. • To increase the use of landscaping, street furniture, ornamental paving, awnings and similar environmental elements that are designed to serve the convenience of pedestrians. • To avoid large expanses of blank walls and extensive distances between doors, to emphasize display windows, plazas and similar focal points so that visual and functional interest for pedestrians will remain uninterrupted. • To encourage the use of appropriate commercial and directional signage for the security and convenience of pedestrians and drivers. 2 OJ. II 371 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT The Saratoga Village should be regarded as anen~ironment in which the pedestrian comes first. This chapter of the guidelines focuses on environmental elements along Big Basin Way -that will help to make the Village more pedestrian oriented, rathertha.n automobile oriented. These elements include decorative crosswalks, sidewalks and tree wells, directories, public telephones, street furniture and street lights.· Four-way stop intersections are als6 proposed for safer pedestrian. access. ~Thel intent of these guidelines is to prpvide attractive-and convenient pedestrian -facilities, assure minimal maintenance costs, and achie~ea visual simplicity ~nd continuity within public ri~hts~- of-way and adjacent private pedestrian areas. . 3 372 Crosswalks and Paving ""[] "0 '.' . ' .. ~ ',':" . . : " . ..... C :.' 3rd Street The use of decorative brick paving stones in, crosswalks and parking areas enhances the pedestrian nature of the Village. The surface is very attractive~ sturdy enough for vehicular use and comfortable for pedestrians. The diagram on this page shows how the paving stones have been installed both in Turkey Trapk Plaza and in crosswalks at intersections on Big Bpsin Way. The use of decorative paving stones rather than concrete or asphalt is also encouraged for privately-owned parking areas and driveways, particularly for properties which front on, and are visible from, Big Basin Way. The "cobble" shape in a reddish broth color sho~ld be used for the field with a rectangular shape in a tan color for the header or edge of a field. ' Interlocking Paving Stones 4 ::>. .. 373 -------~--~---" • .. /. Sidewalks The diagram on this page shows how the decorative brick paving theme is continued from the crosswalks to the sidewalks along Big Basin Way and its commercial feeder streets. The space between the decorative street tree wells is to be filled in with the same tan rectangular paving stones used in the crosswalks. The city will be responsible for installing the paving bricks as part of the City's capital Improvement Program . 1-.+4-,.. .. ::1'-4--1-+-----------tan colored rectangular paving stones in 4" sand bed ~,£.-.J+---I---------4'xlO' tree well with 4"-6" rounded creek stones I-_~ __ --_-___ broom finished concrete curb 5 374 Directories Four locations in the Village have been selected for the installation of informational directories. The directories are to be either individual small wooden structures which provide space for the display of Village maps and information, or posting areas for public and Village-related notices. The directories are designed to be easily recognizable and visible but to not obstruct pedestrian walkways or visibility of traffic from adjacent streets and driveways. Each directory is individually designed to be compatible with the adjacent architecture and its spe~ific site, and all maintain a common theme which expresses the Village design concept. students from West Valley College participated in the directory design process as part of their course work. The directories were originally envisioned as a component of kiosk areas where pedestrians could gather for a variety of uses. The participating students created two alternative design approaches to the four kiosk locations, and some of their concepts have been incorporated into the final directory designs. All directory locations except for #3 are on privately-owned property. The City will install directory #3 at the entrance to Turkey Track Plaza and will initiate a cooperative effort between the City and property owners for the installation of directories 41 1, # 2, and 41 4 . #1 #2 #3 #4 6 375 .---:--:-" ~ . ..' . 7 .. --- .. I . . Directory # 1 ... : Corner of Big Basin and Saratoga Los Gatos • :. '.: \ :.' .•.•••. !.'. '.' :' ••.•• ::;'5§\ . . Directory #2 Buy and Save Market 376 -,""-~-.-~-."",,, I Plan View : Directory #3 Turkey Track Plaza • ~~~~~~~~ ~f:. ~ .. ~~~~~ . Directory #4 Village Square 8 377 " • ---~-~~~~'--'~-------------------.:.-----., I1!fl . Street Furniture Street furniture is the term used to describe elements of the streetscape such as street lights, benches, trash receptacles, newspaper racks, and telephones. Since the Village has an eclectic mix of architectural styles and materials, the street furniture design that has been selected has a simple and functional appearance. The use of a wood and iron design has been selected because it reflects Saratoga's early lumbering history. There must be a commitment on the part of the City,' Saratoga Village Association and individual property owners to the maintenance of the street furniture. The posting of public notices will be restricted to the directories provided specifically for this purpose. STREET LIGHTS The old-fashioned carriage-type street lights along Big Basin Way are maintained jointly by PG&E and the city. This type of light standard will continue to be used in the Village, and will continue to be painted black. The City has installed brackets near the top of the poles to accommodate decorative banners for special occasions (see the Murals and Banners section, page 47). Property owners are encouraged to use a similar style in exterior wall fixtures and low- level pole lights along pedestrian walkways. ". , .. .... 9 378 ;: ... NEWSPAPER RACKS There are currently 34 individual newspaper vending racks along Big Basin Way. These are clustered in six locations: Buy and Save Market, Village Rendezvous, Little Amsterdam, International Coffee Exchange, Village Square, and Plaza del Roble. The uncontrolled placement and maintenance of newsracks on public sidewalks can be a physical and visual nuisance to pedestrians. THe clutter and congestion of the numerous disparat.e types of newsracks on the sidewalks is unsightly and not in keeping with the historic character of the Village. However, the use of the sidewalk is traditionally associated with the sale and distribution of newspapers and other publications, and access to this area for such purposes should not be prohibited. It is the intent of this section of the Village' Design Guidelines to provide for newsrack facilities of uniform and coordinated construction and appearance, and to further provide adequate locations and accessibility for these facilities. There are five proposed locations for newsrack enclosures, as shown in the map and the sketches on the following pages. Each of the locations will accommodate a newsrack structure designed and installed by the City. To as great an extent as possible, structures will have space to accommodate the same number of newsracks in the same locations that are currently existing along Big Basin Way. The only exception to this is the newsrack in front of the Village Rendezvous restaurant; the sidewalk is very narrow in this location and the racks interfere with pedestrian travel. These racks can be incorporated into the structure near the Buy and Save Market. In addition to the newsrack structures themselves, the City is developing a newsrack ordinance which will require newspaper vendors to obtain licenses to sell their papers in the City-owned racks. This license will control only the location and manner in which the newspapers are sold, not the content or the viewpoint of the newspaper itself. 10 379 , .,,<" ." ~ .. • Buy and Save Market ----"" International Coffee Exchange Little Amsterdam -~ Village Square -~ Plaza Del Roble ---r ~I Buy and Save Market 11 380 "'<~o,_~"< __ • ________________ ...... :>. • = , .... ~" ~~...' ~ ~. Little Amsterdam ----' --------------w--II-_I ~ International Coffee Exchange 12 ---"--~--------------------------------------' 381 Village Square ~--=----=-------___ ----w--: -- - Plaza Del Roble 13 382 BENCHES There are a variety of bench styles already in use throughout the Village. Many of these are structurally integrated into landscaping and wall features and should not be removed (see the following illustrations). However, there are many opportunities for the addition of free-standing benches to the pedestrian areas around buildings, which will encourage pedestrians to sit and enjoy the Village ambiance. Individual property owners who wish to install new benches should use the design shown in this diagram. The bench is made of wood and features black cast iron legs and arms. The bench is available in 6' and 8' lengths, and comes either with or without a back. Each bench can be custom engraved or lettered to acknowledge the purchaser or donor. I : c:, l; ., ~--Wood Slats ::------Iron Legs and Arm Rests '/ "7 7 / 7L / £ 7"- ~/ II .. !ot 14 383 , .. '. BENCH PERSPECTIVES : ...... . Village Square Village Design Center 15 384 ·- TRASH CANS The trash can design uses the same materials and style as the benches. The cans are round with a flat top, and durably made of wood slats with a black metal frame. The existin~ City-owned cement trash cans 1n the Village are tentatively proposed to be replaced by, the city wi th new wooden enclosures. There is also the possibility that a local community group may donate these. In addition, property owners who install a new can or replace an existing one will be required to use this wood design. Like the benches, each can may accommodate a custom-lettered medallion to acknowledge the purchaser or donor. TRASH ENCLOSURES All garbage dumpsters are required to be enclosed and screened from public view. This diagram shows the selected design of the trash enclosure, which can be seen at various locations in Village Parking District #3. The structure is made of split-face concrete block with a wood-slat gate. Appropriate landscaping should be installed along the perimeter of the enclosure to soften its appearance. The City will be responsible for installing trash enclosures in the other Village parking districts through assessments to the districts. Individual property owners are responsible for installing them on their own property. t -----= .. ,----- 16 ::>. • 385 ",," ~ ... • TELEPHONE ENCLOSURES The City of Saratoga is developing a contract with a private telephone company for the installation and ongoing maintenance of speciftc public telephones in the Village. These phones are specially designed to provide public telephone service without being visually obtrusive. Their design promotes the historic Village context and is compatible with the design of the street lights and other street furniture. I There are four proposed sites for these new telephones, each with high visibility and accessibility to the public. The locations are: Plaza del Roble, Village Square, Buy & Save Market, and International Coffee Exchange. The existing pay phones at the Bike Shop and Bella Mia should be replaced with the new design as soon as practical because they are not in keeping with the Village design theme. Other telephones at service stations and the Post Office may remain. PROPOSED LOCATIONS Buy and Save Market -,..----_ International Coffee Exchange -~ Bike Shop --------- Bella Mia ---------"""'t Village Square --~ Plaza Del Roble --....... 17 386 '" • Bicycle Facilities The Saratoga Village has become a regular gathering place for recreational bicyclists. Its setting a~ the base of tne Santa Cruz Mountains makes it an ideal destination point for cyclists from allover. Currently, however, there are not adequate facilities for bicycle parking within the village, particularly along Big Basin Way, between the Buy & Save Market and 4th street, where there seems to be a concentration of parked bicycles. " An option to correct this lack of bicycle facilities would be to encourage new development to include a percentage of bicycle parking racks, just as you would for automobiles. The' City should also take the initiative to provide bicycle parking facilities within Parking District ~3, even though it would be preferable to have the parking facility visible from Big Basin Way. , Since space along Big Basin Way is limited, parking islands would provide highly visible parking and also serve as a "Choker" island to slow automobile traffic. ~. " , :;. \: ;. ~.' i: ~ . ;'. . (~ " .' ." '. "" '.' ~:: ~.' ";: ~ '. .' ) ) ';~. [.. AI) " 18 387 c: • .. ARCHITECTURE This chapter of the guidelines is devoted to architectural design concepts whi~h, when applied, will result in renovation and new construction that enhances the small-scaie pedestrian ambiance of the Village. It is not 'the intent of these guidelines to impose strict architectural styles or specific design solutions, but rather to encourage visual harmony and compatibility in terms of the historical context and existinq design fabric of the Village. The first six sections ,of this chapter address architectural and structural elements that apply equally to new construction and renovations of existing buildings: • architectural style and building' form • height, width, setback • roof forms • colors, materials and textures • storefronts • back entrances The remaining section addresses specific infill situations relating to opportunity sites that are vacant or undeideveloped, or that could benefit from special treatment. 19 388 Architectural Style and Building Form The existing architectural context of the Village area is an eclectic mix of old and new styles. within this eclecticism, however, there are definite characteristics that provide a design context for future development and the renovation of existing s~ructures. These characteristics are: • horizontal, rectilinear building forms • one or two stories in height • visual simplicity • basic architectural elements rather than arbitrary stylistic elements • frequency of open spaces, windows and doors • small-scale pedestrian orientation Building forms and architectural treatments that are not appropriate include the following: • overly stylistic designs that are not compatible with the existing Village • vertical forms and unnatural materials • architectural elements that are not functionally integral with the building, such as false mansard roofs, false cornices, etc. • large blank walls 20 389 Height, Width and Setback I The commercial area of the Village is dlivided into two commercial districts. As shown in the map on the facing page, the CH-1 district is the more intense commercial area along Big Basin Way between 5th street and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The CH-2 district is the less intense, more residential area between 5th street and the curve where Big Basin Way becomes Congress Springs Road. The detailed zoning regulations governing uses and development standards for these districts are found in Article 15-19 of the city Code. Discussed on this page are the general peight, width, and setback requirements. The maximum height of any new structure or addition in the CH-1 district is 35 feet, with no more than two stories for structures facing Big Basin Way. Three stories may be permitted for the rear of structures facing Saratoga Creek. In the CH-2 district, the height limit is 26 feet, with a two-story limit, reflecting the more residential character of this area of the Village • • These height limits are intended to promote the compatibility of scale between buildings and a sense of visual continuity. Where building heights differ between adjacent properties, care should be taken to relate the heights of major facade elements such as storefronts, ground floors, upper floo~s, and strong horizontal features such as cornices and belt courses. Buildings should be designed to take up the entire width of the lot, so that no "dead spaces" between buildings are created. For this reason, there are no side yard setback requirements for Village commercial structures. Storefront spaces should be small, inviting, accessible and intimate. Infill construction should maintain the street front rhythm by building from side lot line to side lot line. There are also no front yard setback requirements in the CH-1 district. Commercial buildings should be set directly on the front lot line, creating a solid line of structures along the street frontage. The sidewalk edge of the building can be delineated with planter boxes, columns, benches, or other pedestrian-oriented elements. Structures in the CH-2 district must maintain a front yard setback of 15 feet, again reflecting the more residential character of this area of the Village. 21 390 £: • ~I Village Commercial Zoning CH-l CH-2 ::>. • 22 391 Roof Forms There are a variety of roof forms existing in the Village. Some of these, like flat roofs concealed behind a decorative parapet wall and modern low-pitched roofs, are appropriate to the Village and help create the overall Village design context. Others, such as false mansards, are not true roof forms and should be avoided altogether. In general, roof forms should exhibit architectural simplici ty, but variety is encouraged in order t~ create a visually interesting skyline against the backdrop of the mountains behind Saratoga. Roof surfaces should have a smooth rather than overly rustic appearance, and emphasis should be placed on ornamental embellishments at the cornices, ~ave lines, windows, door openings, and fascia panels. @ID ·1 I . . . . . .' 23 392 , • Colors, Materials and Texture COLORS Color is one of the primary means of unifying and beautifying a commercial area. One building or storefront color can spark a trend toward a fresh coat of paint on neighboring buildings. Likewise, the use of an inappropriate color scheme can affect the image and character of the Village. Colors should fit the Village setting and the natural environ~ent and should be selected with the entire Village ambience in mind. The Saratoga climate is generally characterized by bright, sunny days. Bright whites and very light colors should be used sparingly as they tend to cause disturbing glare and reflection of heat. The following guidelines should be followed when choosing a color or color scheme for a commercial building: • The larger and plainer the building, the more subtle should be the use of color. Small buildings or those with elaborate detailing can often use more color and more ihtense hues. • Use warm, muted shades of tan, cream, yellow, green, blue and peach colors as the body or overall building background colors. Brighter, more intense and richer hues of related or contrasting colors should be used as accent colors and highlight colors for architectural elements. • Relate the paint colors to the natural material colors found on the building, such as brick, terra cotta, stone, tile, wood or cast iron. Brick and stone should be left natural. When several materials are combined on a facade, color can be used to coordinate and highlight the varying components. • Coordinate your color scheme with neighboring buildings, and the Village as a whole, to produce la harmonious effect. • Colors for building walls and storefronts should be compatible for shops which occupy multiple storefront buildings. The use of different colors to identify individual shops within a single structure is visually disruptive and obscures the overall composition of the facade. • Signage, window designs and awnings are most effective when color-coordinated with the building facade. Use darker, deeper and brighter colors on these elements to create interest on the facade and call attention to windows and doorways. ' 24 393 MATERIALS AND TEXTURES There are a variety of building materials and textures in the Village, mirroring the eclectic mix of architectural styles. Following is a list of acceptable and not acceptable materials and textures to use as a guide in new construction and renovation: ACCEPTABLE: I horizontal wood siding, smooth finish, painted or treated unpainted and untreated brick stucco with lightly textured, painted surface transparent glass natural river rock or stone anodized metal, treated with attractive finish tile with a matte finish concrete, textured or incised or painted to reduce the massive appearance for architectural details, use wood or cast plaster for window frames, use wood framing and molding, painted steel sash or anodized metal NOT ACCEPTABLE: smooth glazed tile plastic unfinished metal deliberately rustic appearing materials such as rough-sawn wood, permastone, lavastone, shingles, antiqued brick heavily textured or rough stucco mirrored glass marble 25 394 • Storefronts Physical change is part of the continuing evolution of the Village. The storefront is considered the changeable area of the commercial building facade. Storefronts bear the pressure to modernize and create a new image as businesses move in and out; they have commonly experienced more changes in their lifetime than any o~her part of the building. As a general approach, storefront treatments should respect the original period and style of the building, maintaining its historical integrity to as great an extent possible. However, buildings should not be made to look falsely "historical" or older than they really are. An owner sh9Uld first determine if the existing storefront is the original or a later addition. If it is original, the materials or details and the shape of the openings should be preserved, or the proportions of the facade will be lost. original elements that are missing should be replaced. If the storefront is a later addition, it is wise to retain the alterations if they are well-designed and constructed, even if they are of a style different from the upper part of the facade. Occasionally, a remodeled storefront may be of equal value architecturally as the original. If an owner wishes to restore the storefront to its original facade, the restoration should be based on solid historical documentation such as photos or drawings. The integrity and authenticity of materials should be observed first when making improvements ,to a facade. Storefronts generally have five common elements: entry, display windows, kickplate, horizontal band, and sidewalk coverings. These are illustrated and discussed on the following pages • .. . ' . .. . . ••. ~ Bj·m··r ID],]aJ~[j[rJI. nIt IIJ.:l.,n:J. iO::O~: .. l:: ... :d:;::;:::==$====:'=;::~::) ---Horizontal Band Sidewalk Covering 11111111111: II lWlllI 'If!!1 IfUllllflmH' I R=R rnrm ~+-H+---Display Windows It : . !t±±J D~~_~H+--Entry Kickplate .... ~ / I ! On 10 i I III i 1 ammm v-~---...u..nm:nm_-li.L 26 • 395 C--~--'~"~~~4_' __ WW_Wft ____ +" ___ ~ftk_ft"'"'"'""ft~"""' _____ ,",,",A,_q_'* _____________ -__ :;;),"" • • 27 ENTRY commercial storefront entries were typically recessed. This provides for more area for display space, a shel tered transition area to the interior of the store, and an emphasis for the entrance. Recessed entries should be retained and are encouraged in new storefront construction. The recessed area should be around the door only, not along the entire facade. Doors should use large, glass panels with vertical proportions to provide a sense pf invitation and openness. Solid or residential-type doors should be used only on residential structures that have been converted to a commercial use. Double entry-doors should be retained. DISPLAY WINDOWS The display window is the link between the pedestrian environment outside and the business inside. The original size, division and shape of the display windows within the overall storefront should be preserved. Transparent glass should be used to provide open pedestrian viewing. Colorful blinds, cafe curtains, or flower boxes can be used for commercial uses that require some privacy. store window frames and mullions should be made of traditional wood framing and molding, either finished or painted, painted steel sash, or anodized aluminum. Window signs should be minimally used. KICKPLATE The kickplate functions to protect the display window by raising the glass area to a safer and more easily viewed height. The original kickplate material should always be retained, maintained, or uncovered when possible. Wherever possible, the kickplate and the facade area above the display window should be o 396 the same base material as the rest of the building, in order not to detract from, the overall composition of the building. HORIZONTAL BAND Most storefronts feature a horizontal band area that either separates the first from the second floor in the case of a two-story building, or the first floor from the roof structure in the case of a one-story building. This area can have a variety of treatments~ including a decorative frieze, or horizontal panel, sign band, sidewalk covering, or it may be left plain. Second story facades should retain original window openings or be decoratively treated to provide visual interest above the storefront area. SIDEWALK COVERINGS Sidewalk overhangs provid~ shelter for pedestrians from rain, protect display window merchandise from damage, regulate the amount of heat by directing sunlight entering a store, and serve as a sign or identity for a business. Awnings were traditionally made of cloth and were mounted in the horizontal band area above the display windows or within the window frame itself. Existing metal awnings in the Village should be repl~ced with heavy canvas cloth, and awning shapes should relate to the shape of the top of the opening. Property owners should consider the cumulative effect of all awnings along the street and multiple awnings of neighboring buildings when selecting awning treatment. Awning colors should complement building colors. Plastic awnings should be avoided. ___ d __ ~ __ '~~ ___ """ _____ <:) • 28 397 Rear Entrances The rear entrances to buildings should receive the same attention to detail as the street facade, and the same design guidelines used for the front apply to the rear. This is particularly important for structures with service or sales entries off the village parking districts, because these districts provide the majority of parking spaces for Village merchants and customers and are very visible to the public. The following guidelines should be followed when making improvements to the rear areas of buildings: Use awnings, elements to buildings. planter boxes, landscaping, and decorative improve the visual quality of the rear of Draw attention to the entry door with signage, color and architectural elements. Remove unsightly metal sheds or other outbuildings that detract from the rear view. Lighting at the rear should be low-level and low intensity because these areas often face onto residential districts. Screen utilities and mechanical equipment from public view. Village Square F:rom Parking District #4 --......-----............------..:::;::::::----:::.-..---.:::::::-- 29 398 Opportunity Sites To a large degree, the Saratoga Village is already a completely built environment. There are few vacant parcels remaining and most of the development that will occur in the future will be the remodeling of existing structures. The use of these guidelines in those remodeling efforts will ensure appropriate upgrading of buildings. The sites that are identified on these pages offer special opportunities to achieve distinctive design solutions and further contribute to the unique character of the Village. Site # 1----'- Site #2--~ Site #3--~ Site #4---+ 30 399 l 31 SITE 1: GATEWAY CORNER AT BIG BASIN WAY AND ~BLANEY PLAZA Known locally as the "Scooter House" site, this parcel signals the entrance into the Saratoga Village, especially from the north and west. The site c,ontained a service station for some time, and now features a small one-story commercial structure at the rear corner ~ith parking area adjacent to the corner streets. The two-story Corinthian Corners buildings abut the lot to either side, and the site is separated from Blaney Plaza by a ,spur extension of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. This parcel can be upgraded by the use of decorative brick pavers instead of asphalt for the parking area; the use of cloth awnings, a fresh coat of paint, and architectural detailing on the building to give it visual interest: and landscaping and planter boxes along all perimeters of the lot, including a heritage-size tree at the Big Basin Way driveway entrance to the lot. This parcel is also an appropriate location for a Village directional sign, with one arrow pointing to the Historical Museum and Chamber of Commerce site and another pointing up Big Basin Way for Village shops and parking. • Existing . ... ,' ....... JDL~~ Potential 400 ~I SITE 2: ECHO SHOP This site contains the only residential-type structure in the more intense commercial portion of Big Basin Way between 5th street and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The one-story structure is set back from the sidewalk and landscaped in front with lawn, giving it an appearance not fitting with the storefront commercial pattern along the street. There is also a driveway on the west side of the lot serving a private parking area not connected to Parking District #3. Development of this site should be treated as follows: l)con- struct a new building that has no front yard setback and takes up the entire width of the lot; 2) the new structure' may be one or two stories and should follow the architectu- ral design guidelines discussed in this chapter: G)close off driveway and create parking in the rear as part of Parking District #3; 4)incorporate an appropriate transition to the walkway adjacent to the east which provides access to the parking district and the Coffee Exchange/Gilley's building. Existing Potential 32 401 33 SITE· 3: WATER PUMPING BUILDING AT CORNER OF 4TH AND BIG BASIN WAY The one-story spanish style building at this location houses a San Jose Water Company pumping station. The simple architectural style, red tile roof and front arched windows make this structure an important visual feature of this busy Village intersection. Some very simple treatments to the exterior of this building would enhance its appearance at this important corner property. These treatments include a simple wood identification sign and flower boxes on the front facade, and landscaping on the 4th Street side in the dirt area between the building and the curb. This location is also appropriate for a Village directional sign pointing down 4th Street, indicating the entrance to the Inn at Saratoga, wildwood Park, and parking districts. Existing .. .. I .... :! ;:::: . . . ::j :1 ".' .. :.: ....... ., , ....... , ,. ,. : .. : :'.,,'''': ..... ;. ".' ·,'''i'· ... ,:,'" .".: '. 'S· ~ i~.~t·"'::t '::.';'~ ,.:., .': .. ' :'."".',,'.'. ': ':>:': .,."'~ .... : .... : .... : ... ... . .. . Potential Ii 402 ~I SITE 4: FAT ROBIN This site consists of three parcels, two lots containing the two Fat Robin commercial establishments, and a 12-foot wide lot separating them; this narrow lot serves as an emergency access to a condominium project fronting on st. Charles street and is lined with a 6-foot high 'wooden fence. Because the Fat Robin structures are located1to the far sides of their lots, the parcel appears visually to be able to accomodate another structure between them; this is not the case because of the necessity for the emergency driveway which separates them. There are three driveways in close succession off Big Basin' Way serving these parcels. The appropriate treatment for this site is to consolidate the three driveways 'into one, closing off the remaining two, and create a parking area that is visually pleasing and removed from the sidewalk by a fence or low wall and adequate landscaping. This site may also be an appropriate location for a bench and enl~rged pedestrian seating area. Potential 34 403 i: • NOOKS AND CRANNIES . ';-.. In addition to the four specific opportunity sites illustrated in this section, there are also a number of alleys, driveways, and underdeveloped portions of sites in the Village that can be visually and physically improved for use as aesthetic and pedestrian amenities. The following is a list of examples: W~lls Fargo bank/Village Rendezvous Alley This alley, which currently provides access to second-story apartments, can be improved by screening the trash dumpster and providing landscaping. Melton Junipers This space is currently home to a dense growth of junipers. Because of its central Village location, it could be better utilized and enhanced by articulated landscaping, bench seating and other pedestrian amenities. County Store Cafe This alley is another instance where simple maintenance and landscaping treatment can create a m 0 rep 1 e a sin g p e de' s t ria n environment. outdoor dining would also be an appropriate use. -= I 35 404 Marjolaine/Saratoga Hardware This currently unused driveway is an ideal opportunity to create a small I inear park that could provide a quiet, shaded resting place directly off Big Basin Way, with access to the parking district behind the buildings. Hair Conception/Mere Michele This is a space created by two parallel, abutting driveways, separated by a fence. Simple visual improvements include the addition of vines to the fence and planter boxes along the sides of the space, and resurfacing the asphalt with decorative paving stones. ==- =:::: = = 36 405 c~~ ___ "" _______ ---:>'"" LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan for the Village consists' primarily of the City's street tree program and the installation and maintenance of '1 andscapingc and flower boxes by private property owners'. Landscaping in Village parking districts behind -the buildings c fronting on Big Basin Way is maintained-on,an ongoing basis by the City.' ,/ " 37 406 Street Tree Program The Big Basin Way street tree program wa~ adopted as part of the Village Plan in May, 1988. This program called for the·removal of approximately 50 trees and shrubs, which were either diseased, inappropriate species, or causing sidewalk maintenance problems, and the planting of approximately 60 new replacement trees. The intent of the tree program is not to create a rigid, formal look with repetition of the same tree, but rather a casual appearance with a spontaneous mixture of a variety of trees appropriate tQ the small scale and architectural eclecticism of the Village. The I • trees have been planted between 25-40 feet apart, depepdlng on the species and the spread. The tree removal and replanting program occurred in summer/fall of 1989. Each tree is equipped with individual underground irrigation and electrical service and a decorative surface of natural rounded creeks stones. The electrieal service enables each tree to be illuminated by the City on special occasions. Maintenance of the Village street trees is the sole respqnsibility of the City. Merchants and property owners should not prune, water, post signs on or otherwise tamper with the street trees in any way. 38 407 ." Flower Boxes Freshly-planted flowers in bright colors give the sense that the Village is a special place, one that is alive and cared for. Just as there is an eclectic mix of architecture in the Village, so there exists a variety of flower boxes in front of many commercial buildings. This variety is encouraged and supported by the Village Plan. The only type of planter that is discouraged is one made of concrete, cement or block. These typically have a heavy, industrial appearance that is not appropriate to the Village " ' amb~ence. Planter boxes should be incorporated into the front and rear entrances of businesses wherever possible, and property owners should make a concerted effort to keep the planters filled with flowering plants year round. Propertx owners also have a duty to keep their planter boxes themselves in good repair. In addition to flower boxes, property owners may wish to install shrubs, small trees and vines. These types of plants should also be of the flowering variety, to add color and interest to the Village streetscape. To assist the City and property owners in selecting appropriate landscaping, the Village Design Guidelines provide a list of acceptable flowers, shrubs, trees and vines. This list is found on the following pages. ------- 39 408 Flowers for Hanging Baskets Ivy geranium Trailing begonias Trailing campanula Shrubs Lobelia Asparagus fern Lotus berthelotii Australian Brush cherry: Sun or part shade, grows to 30 feet, new growth has reddish tinge, average water but drought tolerant once established. I Daylily: Lily plant that is bushy to 2'-3', sun or part shade, hardy perennial, yellow or orange flowers summer to fall. Small Trees Japanese maple: Needs part shade, frequent watering, grows to 20 feet, good fall foliage, deciduous. crape Myrtle: Takes sun, drought resistant, grows to 30 feet, deciduous, blossoms in spring, fall foliage. Flowering Japanese Crabapple (Malus): Grows to 30 feet, blossoms in spring, fall foliage. Japanese Flowering Cherry: Grows to 25 feet, blossoms in spring. Flowering Plum: Grows to 20 '-30', deciduous, blossoms in spr,ing, buy fruitless kind. Vines Bougainvillea: Spectacular flowers, needs sun, use trellis Clematis: Spectacular flowers, sun or shade, tendrils cling virginia creeper: Deciduous with spectacular fall foliage, tendrils that cling, not sui table for wood or shingle siding because it can creep underneath Trumpet Vine: Sun or shade, tendrils that cling cats Claw: Once established needs little water, tendrils Boston Ivy: Beautiful red fall foliage Passion vine: Vigorous, pink and lavender flowers Silver Lace Vine: Needs sun, average water, flowers from spring to fall. 40 409 .", ,. t,' • SIGNAGE I Signs can go a ·long way toward enhancing or detracting from the attractiveness of the Village area. It, is· the intent of the sign guidel ines to encourage ?ignage that functions clearly to _.inform, pedestrians and motorists of business names and serv1ces,· but that· does not detract from the architectural quality of individual buildings or from the streetscape as a ~hole. " The Saratoga city Code alre"ady has" sign regulations, (Article 15- 30) which outline the allowable size, ·type and location of signs in comm~rcial districts. Those regulations shall be followed for the Village area as well, except as noted in these guidelines. The guidelines address visual and design concerns that are not found in the ordinance, and encourage the use of pedestrian- oriented signs. 41 410 c • Sign Location and; Area The location of signs on any building ,should clearly bear a relationship to the architecture oflthe building itself. Signs should not obscure other building elements such as windows, cornices or decorative details. Signs should be located directly above the entrance to the store, or directly to the sides of the entrance at eye level, so that they are visible below the foliage of street trees. for the amenity and convenience of the pedestrian. Roof signs are not penni tted, nor are sig'ns allowed to extenc;i above the eave line or above the top of a parapet wall. The total allowable square footage for commercial signs in the Village is determined by section 15-30.100 of the Sign ordinance, with a maximum allowable area of 40 sq. ft. I An additional amount of sign area will be allowed for establishments which provide pedestrian access to their sales and service areas through the rear entrances of their buildings. The same guidelines which apply to the fronts of buildings apply to the rear facades. 42 411 43 Type of Signs WALL OR FLUSH-MOUNTED SIGNS Wall signs should have a basic rectangular shape and should be applied horizontally directly above or to the side of the entry. Variations which respect the basic rectangular shape are acceptable. When a building contains two or more' signs, the wall signs should complement one another in color and shape, and should be located in the same position over the storefront. wall signs can be painted directly onto the facade of a building or can be made of various materials and applied with screws or other devices. HANGING AND PROJECTING SIGNS Hanging and projecting signs typically are hung from coverings over sidewalks or are mounted on the wall perpendicular to the building facade. They should be placed at a location to be effective for pedestrians, yet placed no lower than 8 feet off the ground for adequate vertical clearance. Hanging and proj ecting signs may have different lettering and image styles: • icon or symbolic object, which depicts the goods or services being sold in the building • corporate logo • words only, or combination of words with icon or words with logo Signs may also be painted directly on canvas awnings. 412 '" • WINOOW SIGNS Window signs are limited to not more than 25% of the window area and shall be placed near the building entrance so that they do not obscure visibility into the shop. Every effort should be made to integrate window signs with store window displays. Sign lettering and graphics can be applied directly onto the glass, or applied to a clear acrylic panel behind the window. A simple, legible lettering style should be used, and the colors should be I imi ted to white, black or gold leaf, which is very effective and reflects light back onto the streetscape, giving an elegant effect. Temporary signs, such as hand painted "sale" signs on paper or cardboard and plastered in windows are highly inappropriate for the Village. FREE STANDING MONUMENT OR POLE SIGNS The monument sign is the preferred type of sign only where there is a building complex with a number of businesses within, that are not visible from the street. The sign should be located at the entrance to the complex so that it is visible to pedestrians and motorists alike. The sign may be designed to feature individual shingle signs for each of the businesses. :~ '.' . ..':: . ," ' .... . '" .. ' .. ":'.::,,:. . ,-·7 -:.:: :. oo::o:ofoo ° O}~ . ' .. . ' '::.:: . -'.:' -.. 44 413 · .. "." Materials, Colors and Illumination MATERIALS The desirable materials for signs are wood, glass, brick, metals with a matte finish, and paint applied directly to the building facade. Wooden signs can be painted or stained, or feature raised metal letters and numbers. Inappropriate sign materials are plastic, metal and plastic can signs, chrome, and channel lettering. COLORS Sign colors should relate to and complement the material or paint scheme of the buildings, including accenting highlights and trim colors. The numbers of colors on any sign should be limited to three: a dark hue, a medium hue, and a light accent color. These three combine to produce a highly legible and visible sign. Fluorescent colors are not recommended. ILLUMINATION Internally illuminated signs are not permitted, neon signs, flashing signs with moving graphics. plastic nor are and sign signs should have the capability of being lit for evening visibility, through the use of soffit lighting or screened floodlights of a low wattage. 45 414 46 .. Banners and Murals Banners and cloth signs can be an effective means of adding bright colors and a festive air. However, because these materials are vulnerable to the elements, they are permitted only for special, festive occasions, such as the Blossom Festival, and must be approved by the Planning Director. The, banners at Blaney Plaza are regulated and installed by the ci ty Recreation Department and the Saratoga Fire Department. Information about the banners is available from those agencies. Murals and wall paintings as art work are appropriate only when they enhance the quality of the Village by depicting appropriate historic scenes or harmonize with existing architecture. Corporate or retail sales identities in murals are not permitted. Murals should not be used to embellish stark walls where materials such as landscaping or trellises with climbing vines are more appropriate to achieve this result. All murals are subject to special review by the Planning Commission. 415 ~~ .... • +1 STREET LAMP BANNERS The city has installed brackets near the top of the Village lamp poles to accommodate decorative banners. street lamp banners may be used to advertise special events which are sponsored by the city. The City sponsors events such as "Celebrate Saratoga" or Christmas greetings, which are for the benefit and enjoyment of the whole community. Advertizement of private events is not allowed on street lamp banners. 47 416 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY:Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director SUBJECT: EIR Project Description for the Mountain Winery Annexation Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the project description of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Mountain Winery Annexation Project in Attachment A. BACKGROUND: On March 20, 2019, the City Council directed staff to commence the annexation process for The Mountain Winery. On June 5, 2019, a community meeting was held by staff to share information about the annexation and gather feedback from the community on the draft General Plan and Zoning designations, which will establish standards for future uses on the property. On June 11, 2019, the City Council held a joint study session with the Planning Commission to review the following proposed regulations to be adopted for The Mountain Winery upon its annexation into the City. New General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District Regional Commercial (RC) – The RC land use designation identifies areas intended to provide a broad range of visitor serving commercial uses with a regional orientation. Typical uses allowed include indoor and outdoor recreation, dining, entertainment, meetings and special events, retreats, lodging, wineries, spas, agriculture, and other similar commercial activities and compatible uses. Parcels with this designation shall be a minimum of 150 acres in size. The Mountain Winery would be the only site that falls under this designation. The RC zoning will require the City to approve a precise plan as a means to establish more specific land use regulations and design standards. Precise Plan The Precise Plan will contain the following key elements: 1. Annexation Area - Parcel # 503-46-006 (~175acres) and Parcel # 503-46-007 which includes the water tank. 2. Allowed Uses - All uses allowed by existing County approvals will be authorized subject to all conditions in those approvals. In addition, lodging will be included as an allowed use. 417 3. Boundaries of the Building Site – Existing and future development will be confined to the ~73 acre disturbed area currently being used for The Mountain Winery operations. 4. Maximum Building Coverage - The maximum area to be covered by enclosed structures (footprint of buildings) shall be no more than 20% of the disturbed area and include a not-to- exceed amount. 5. Maximum Building Height - 35’ with up to 10’ of additional height allowed for architectural features that do not contain floor area. 6. Maximum Number of Rooms for Lodging - For the purpose of CEQA, the EIR will study the environmental impacts of up to 300 rooms for lodging. Design Review Findings The following design review findings are intended to ensure that any future development will blend in with the natural beauty and hillsides and not result in unreasonable impacts to community viewsheds. 1. The proposed project will blend in with the natural landscape in terms of materials, form and color. 2. The location, design and construction of the development project follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints. 3. Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. 4. If more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. 5. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to community viewsheds. 6. The proposed project utilizes minimal lighting so that the presence of development at night is minimized. 7. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. 8. Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. 418 Development Agreement The annexation would include a development agreement giving The Mountain Winery a vested right to the land use standards defined above for a defined period of 25-40 years. NEXT STEPS: Based on feedback from the Council and Planning Commission during the study session, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of Environmental Impact Report with a project description has been prepared (Attachment A). Once the project description is accepted by the City Council, staff will proceed with scheduling a public scoping meeting as required by CEQA. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A – EIR Project Description 419 City of Saratoga Mountain Winery Annexation Project Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report – Project Description The City of Saratoga intends to prepare an EIR for the Mountain Winery Annexation Project (Project). The Mountain Winery is located at 14831 Pierce Road, in unincorporated Santa Clara County (County). The Project would consist of adjustments to the City Urban Service Area (USA) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundaries to include APN’s 503-46-006 and 503-46-007. The Project also includes related General Plan and zoning ordinance amendments, adoption of a Precise Plan and development agreement, and subsequent annexation of the parcels into the City. In addition, the Project entails annexation into the Cupertino Sanitary District to allow for the potential to connect to the Cupertino Sanitary District system in the future. Several of these actions are subject to review and approval by the Santa ClaraLocal Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). A new General Plan land use designation of Regional Commercial (RC) and a new zoning district of Regional Commercial (RC) would be applied to APN 503-46-006 and a portion of APN 503-46-007, as shown in Figure 1. The City would prepare a Precise Plan to establish more specific land use regulations and design standards for the new RC land use designation and zoning district. The Precise Plan boundaries would encompass an area of previously disturbed land where the existing Mountain Winery operations occur. An existing General Plan land use designation of Hillside Open Space (OS-H) and an existing zoning district of Residential Open Space (R-OS) would be applied to the remainder of APN 503-46-007, outside the Precise Plan boundaries, as shown in Figure 1. The new General Plan land use designation (RC) and the new zoning district (RC) and Precise Plan would allow uses permitted under the existing County Use Permit (approved in 2000, modified in 2018) to continue, while also allowing for new uses (subject to a maximum permissible density and intensity of use established by the Precise Plan). Uses currently permitted under the County Use Permit include the existing Mountain Winery operations, a future wine tasting building, a future concession building, afuture event building, a future storage building, a future ticket office, and a future outdoor terrace garden area. New uses allowed by the Project would include lodging uses (up to 300 rooms), a second water tank, and future connections to the Cupertino Sanitary District infrastructure to support the new uses. The OS-H land use designation and R-OS zoning district are intended to support and enhance a rural character, promote the wise use of natural resources, and avoid natural hazards; environmentally sensitive low density residential use (up to one residential dwelling unit per 160 acres at this site) is allowed. 1133284.2 420 Figure 1. Proposed Land Use Designation and Zoning District LAND USE Regional Commercial (RC) ZONING Regional Commercial (RC) LAND USE Hillside Open Space (OS-H) ZONING Residential Open Space (R-OS) APN#: 503-46-007 APN#: 503-46-006 421 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:City Attorney PREPARED BY:Richard Taylor, City Attorney SUBJECT:Annual Code Update for 2019 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the proposed cleanup amendments to the City Code and direct staff to prepare an ordinance implementing the amendments for consideration by the City Council. DISCUSSION: Each year the City adopts a number of cleanup amendments to the City Code to clarify ambiguities, comply with state laws, and conform to new best practices that have changed since the Code was adopted. The attached table lists the Code sections that staff recommends be updated. If the Council approves the list staff will prepare the ordinance amendments and will consult with the Planning Commission with respect to the changes affecting the Zoning Code. The Council may direct that items be removed from the list and may propose that additional items be added. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A–Proposed Code Amendments for 2019 Annual Code Update 422 423 Proposed Code Amendments for 2019 Annual Code Update Topic/Code Sections Issue Changes Chapter 2 - Administration 2-05 – Appeals This article provides a right to appeal within 15 days of the a date that a decision is “rendered.” Nothing in the code specifies whether this is the date a decision is made in practical effect (e.g., at a Planning Commission meeting) or is made formally (e.g., by a signed resolution documenting the decision). Amend the Code to clarify that the appeals period runs for from documentation of the decision in question. This will also include amendments elsewhere in the Code (e.g., 15-90.050 concerning appeals of planning decisions) not listed below. 2-50.010 – Claim filing procedures This section specifies procedures for filing certain claims against the City. It sets time frames that differ from standard claim filing periods. Amend the Code to clarify that all claims are subject to the same time frames. 2-50.020 - Processing of claims against City The City Code currently authorizes the City Manager to enter contracts of up to $25,000 but has a limit of $10,000 with respect to settling claims against the City. Amend the Code to set the City Manager’s claim settlement authority at the same level as set forth in the Purchasing System Code. Chapter 3 – Code Enforcement 3-30.030 - Administrative Fines, Late Charges This and other sections of the Code reference specific amounts for fines and late charges. This requires code amendments every time these amounts change. Amend the Code to replace references to specific fee amounts with a reference to the City fee schedule. (As with ordinance amendments, the fee schedule may be updated only after notice and a public hearing.) Chapter 4 – Business Regulations Article 4-05 – Business Licenses Several sections in this Article reference specific amounts for fines and late charges. This requires code amendments every time these amounts change. Amend the Code to replace references to specific fee amounts with a reference to the City fee schedule. (As with ordinance amendments, the fee schedule may be updated only after notice and a public hearing.) Section 4-05.115 This section requires all license fee payments to be made by check. Revise to allow license fees to be paid with any method of 424 However the City has the ability to accept other of forms of payment (e.g., credit cards). payment regularly accepted by the City. Article 4-06 – License Fee Schedule Numerous provisions in this Article reference specific amounts for fines and late charges. This requires code amendments every time these amounts change. Amend the Code to replace references to specific fee amounts with a reference to the City fee schedule. (As with ordinance amendments, the fee schedule may be updated only after notice and a public hearing.) Chapter 15 – Zoning Code 15-06.280 - Floor Area Definition The definition of "Floor area" refers to total enclosed area and states that “The term "enclosed," as used in this Section, means a structure or area with a roof and with three or more walls, or an equivalent percentage of enclosure.” It is not clear what the italicized text means or how it is to be calculated; accordingly staff and applicants do not rely on this standard and it can be deleted. In addition, the definition can have additional clarity by adding a statement that a “wall” need not be entirely solid but can be up to 50% open. Delete “or an equivalent percentage of enclosure” and add a definition of “wall” allowing the wall to be 50% open. 15-35.020 (h) – Off Street Parking This subsection allows parking on adjacent sites and also references parking on sites separated by an alley. Since such sites are considered adjacent under the City’s standard application of that term there is no need for the specific reference in this subsection. Delete the site-specific reference for consistency throughout the City Code. 15-45.060(a)(9) - Planning Commission design review; public hearing This subsection requires that a project that would ordinarily be eligible for Administrative Design Review must be reviewed by the Planning Commission if it is Delete this subsection. This would also involve a conforming amendment to section 16-65.060 (a) which 425 located within the Pmw, Pd, or Pdf areas on the City's Ground Movement Potential Map. However, the design review findings address do not address issue pertaining to safety/structural stability questions related to geologic conditions. These are addressed through the geotechnical clearance process. cross-references subsection (9). 15-55.130 – Conditional Use Permit Appeals This section includes language regarding appeals of use permits issued for generators. The generator use permit requirement was removed in 2014. Accordingly the generator use permit-related provisions may be deleted. Amend to delete reference to appeals of generator conditional use permits. 15-56.030 (a)(1) – Lot Size for Accessory Dwelling Units The Code currently allows Accessory Dwelling Units on lots that are least 90% of the minimum lot size in the area. This is in addition to requirements for maximum area, site coverage, setbacks, and heights. Removing the 90% standard would allow owners of substandard lots to build ADUs while still protecting the City’s standards with respect to lot coverage, etc. Delete the minimum lot size requirement and retain the requirements for maximum area, site coverage, setbacks, and heights. 1134614.1 426 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk SUBJECT:Agreement with Granicus, Inc. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to execute a three-year service agreement with Granicus, Inc. for streaming video services, Peak Agenda Management Software, and replacement of Granicus Encoding Appliance Hardware. BACKGROUND: The City of Saratoga has been using Granicus since 2006 for our streaming video services of Council and Planning Commission meetings. In 2015, the City amended its services agreement with Granicus to include Peak Agenda, an agenda workflow product used to prepare agenda packets for the City Council and Planning Commission. The City also uses the Granicus iLegislate mobile app for viewing packets that the City uses to during City Council and Planning Commission meetings. This new 3-year agreement would continue the existing Granicus services at an annual cost of $16,560 through June 30, 2021 with a 3% increase in the third and final year of the agreement. The agreement also includes purchasing a new Granicus Encoding Appliance Hardware for a one- time cost of $4,500. The new encoder will replace existing hardware that can no longer be updated. The new encoder will allow the City to transition from analog to digital video format and while the new encoder can stream at 720p for an additional yearly fee of $1,200, the proposed agreement includes streaming at the current resolution of 480p. Streaming at a lower resolution helps ensure that individuals with slower internet speeds can still view meeting videos. KSAR records meetings in 720p and provides a recording at this resolution to the City after each meeting. Funding for the software subscription costs of $16,560 and the one-time equipment costs of $4,500 have been factored into the Fiscal Year 2019/20 budget. The total cost of the agreement over the 3 year term is $54,676.80. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Contract with Granicus, Inc.427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:July 3, 2019 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk SUBJECT: Report on Campaign Expenditure Limits RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report and direct staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: At the May 1, 2019 meeting, Vice Mayor Miller, with support from Council Member Bernald, requested a report on campaign expenditure limits. Staff was asked to include the following in the report: information about expenditure limits adopted by other cities; impacts of expenditure limits; historical data on campaign expenditures in Saratoga; and the 2017 report from League of Women Voters. In California, a number of cities and counties have adopted campaign finance ordinances that affect campaign contributions and expenditures. These ordinances establish a variety of mandatory and voluntary regulations, such as campaign contribution limits, campaign finance reporting requirements above and beyond those required by the Political Reform Act, and voluntary expenditure limits. Voluntary Campaign Expenditure Limits While local governments may enact voluntary expenditure limits, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that mandatory expenditure limits are unconstitutional. Candidates must be allowed to freely choose whether to accept the limits. Voluntary campaign expenditure limits generally follow two basic models – per capita limits or predefined limits. In many cases, expenditure limits are set based on a certain dollar value per resident. For example, the City of Gilroy and City of Newark’s voluntary spending limit is $1.00 per resident. The City of Cupertino has a voluntary expenditure limit based on the most current number of voters (27,874 in 2018) multiplied by 2.9% of the Consumer Price Index, which in 449 Page 2 of 3 2018 was $29,000. In many cases, the spending limit is periodically reviewed and adjusted for inflation and rising costs. Alternatively, cities set a certain predefined limit and make periodic adjustments. The City of Mountain View’s expenditure limit was originally $15,000 when adopted in 2000. Every election year, the limit increases by 3%. For the 2018 Mountain View election, the spending limit was $25,539. Since expenditure limits are voluntary, some cities choose to offer incentives to encourage candidates to accept spending limits. Cities that have adopted voluntary expenditure limits often also have mandatory contribution limits that cap the amount of money a candidate can accept from an individual or organization. Some cities with voluntary expenditure limits and mandatory contribution limits allow larger contributions to candidates who have accepted expenditure limits. For example, the City of Newark sets contribution limits at $100 per source but sets a higher limit of $500 per source for candidates that have accepted voluntary spending limits. Some cities, including the City of Cupertino, that have instituted voluntary expenditure limits indicate a candidate has accepted expenditure limits with a symbol next to the candidate’s name on the ballot (i.e. * or ). Other cities pay for part of the candidate’s statement of qualifications if the candidate signs the voluntary expenditure form. Clerks of cities with voluntary expenditure limits have shared that nearly all candidates accepting voluntary expenditure limits and the voluntary measures resulted in reduced campaign spending. In most Cities, the candidate signs a voluntary expenditure form while filing their nomination papers with the City Clerk. Candidate Donation Limits Although expenditure limits must be voluntary, the City Council may adopt mandatory campaign donation limits from an individual or single source via ordinance. Many cities have candidate donation limits, which often range from $100 to $750, even if they do not have expenditure limits. These limits would not apply to the candidate’s own contributions to their own election fund. As noted above, the City of Newark sets contribution limits at $100 per source but sets a higher limit of $500 per source for candidates that have accepted voluntary spending limits. Attachment B has a list of the donation limits of other cities. City of Saratoga Campaign Expenditure History From 2010 to 2018, expenditures reported by Saratoga City Council Candidates have varied significantly ranging from as little as $81.69 to as much as $57,659. The average of all candidates’ expenditures in 2018 was $26,384. The history of reported campaign expenditures from 2010 to 2018 is included in Attachment A. Candidate’s Statement of Qualifications 450 Page 3 of 3 The purpose of the voluntary candidate statement (Statement of Qualifications) is to acquaint voters with the candidate’s qualifications for the office they are seeking. The candidate statement is incorporated into the County Voter Information Guide and is mailed to all registered voters eligible to vote for the candidate. In advance of each election, the City Council adopts a resolution calling for an election and establishing the word limit on candidate’s statement of qualifications. Statements may be limited to 200 words or 400 words. The City of Saratoga usually allows a candidate’s statement of qualifications to be up to 400 words. Saratoga is usually the only city in Santa Clara County that allows a 400-word statement. In Santa Clara County, the cost of candidate’s statement of qualifications varies based on the number of words allowed in the statement, number of elections in the County, number of voters, and translation requirements. The cost of a candidate’s statement for Saratoga City Council candidates in the 2018 election was $2,654. Most cities in the County require candidates to pay for the full cost of the statement or a portion of the statement cost. Traditionally, Saratoga has charged candidates the full amount of the cost of the statement. Some cities reduce the cost of the statement if voluntary expenditure limits are accepted. For example, Mountain View candidates who accept expenditure limits pay only $500 for the candidate’s statement of qualifications. 2017 League of Women Voters Election Finance Study At the September 20, 2017 Council Meeting, the League of Women Voters Southwest Santa Clara Valley Chapter presented their Local Election Finance Study. The area studied included the cities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. For the study, finances of candidates in city and school board elections in the November 2016 were assessed. The report also included several election-related recommendations for cities. As a result, the City of Saratoga has started posting campaign disclosure forms on the City website and hosted an orientation for prospective candidates before the filing period. This report has not been updated since 2017. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – City of Saratoga Reported Campaign Expenditure History 2010-2018 Attachment B – Summary of Campaign Expenditures Limits of other Cities Attachment C – 2017 League of Women Voters Election Finance Study 451 City of Saratoga Reported Campaign Expenditure History 2002-2012 Candidate Election Year Incumbent?Elected Total Expenditures Reported Candidate 1 2010 Incumbent Elected $5,844.61 Candidate 2 2010 Incumbent Elected $6,251.00 Candidate 3 2010 $8,000.00 Candidate 4 2010 $15,722.00 Candidate 5 2010 Elected $23,365.97 Candidate 6 2010 $36,399.36 2010 Total Expenditures:$95,582.94 Average Expenditures:$15,930.49 Number of Council Seats:3 Candidate Election Year Incumbent?Elected Total Expenditures Reported Candidate 1 2012 Incumbent Elected $81.69 Candidate 2 2012 Incumbent Elected $394.07 2012 Total Expenditures:$475.76 Average Expenditures:$237.88 Number of Council Seats:2 Candidate Election Year Incumbent?Elected Total Expenditures Reported Candidate 1 2014 $7,467.00 Candidate 2 2014 Imcumbent Elected $14,444.91 Candidate 3 2014 Incumbent Elected $16,408.00 Candidate 4 2014 $20,265.00 Candidate 5 2014 Elected $38,378.00 2014 Total Expenditures:$96,962.91 Average Expenditures:$19,392.58 Number of Council Seats:3 Candidate Election Year Incumbent?Elected Total Expenditures Reported Candidate 1 2016 $612.00 Candidate 2 2016 Incumbent Elected $13,149.00 Candidate 3 2016 $20,537.00 Candidate 4 2016 Incumbent Elected $25,500.00 2016 Total Expenditures:$59,798.00 Average Expenditures:$14,949.50 Number of Council Seats:2 Candidate Election Year Incumbent?Elected Total Expenditures Reported Candidate 1 2018 $1,999.00 Candidate 2 2018 $19,465.00 Candidate 3 2018 Incumbent Elected $18,453.00 Candidate 4 2018 Elected $34,348.00 Candidate 5 2018 Incumbent Elected $57,659.00 2018 Total Expenditures:$131,924.00 Average Expenditures:$26,384.80 Number of Council Seats:3 452 Campaign Expenditure and Donation Limits by City West Valley Cities are in blue City/Town population Expenditure Limits Donation Limits Saratoga 30,905 None None Belmont 27,140 None $500 limit to a candidate from any person or controlled committee, other than the candidate Campbell 41,544 None None Capitola 10,000 None $200 limit to a candidate from any person or controlled committee, other than the candidate Cupertino 60,777 Voluntary Limit of $29,000 for 2018 based on number of registered voters None Gilroy 57,664 Voluntary limit of $1.00 per resident in municipal election $750 limit to a candidate from any person or controlled committee, other than the candidate Los Altos Hills 8,580 None None Los Gatos 30,724 None None Malibu 12,877 None $250 limit to a candidate from any person or controlled committee, other than the candidate Milpitas 76,000 None $250 limit to a candidate from any person or controlled committee, other than the candidate Monte Sereno 3,578 None None Morgan Hill 45,037 None None Monrovia 39,000 None None Mountain View 81,438 For 2016 election, voluntary limit was $24,073. Goes up 3% every election. None Newark 45,422 Voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling of $1.00 per resident in municipal election If candidate signs voluntary expenditure, then can accept up to $500 per person, but if not, then only $100 per person Pittsburg 75,000 None None Pismo Beach 8,000 None None 453 Redwood City 86,685 None None Rolling Hills Estates 8,000 Voluntary limit of $5000 in City Code $250 limit to a candidate from any person or controlled committee, other than the candidate San Carlos 30,000 None None Truckee 16,000 None None Ukiah 16,036 Voluntary limit of $5850 for 2018 $500 limit to a candidate from any person or controlled committee, other than the candidate 454 1 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Local Election Finance Study League of Women Voters Southwest Santa Clara Valley (SWSCV) Serving the communities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, & Saratoga March 1, 2017 455 2 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Local Election Finance Study League of Women Voters Southwest Santa Clara Valley (SWSCV) Serving the communities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, & Saratoga March 1, 2017 Study Committee Tom Picraux*, Danice Picraux*, Meg Giberson, Kathy Murtfeldt, Pat White, Eleanor Yick * Co-chairs Preamble LWV Mission: The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. Preface The SWSCV League decided at their 2016-17 annual planning meeting to carry out a Local Election Finance Study. The study is a follow-up to a survey of local election finance regulations that our League conducted last year as part of the League of Women Voters’ national “Money in Politics” study. The Local Election Finance Study committee was charged with reviewing and analyzing available information on local election financing and reporting for the cities within our local area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga, as well as comparing the results to practices in nearby cities in Santa Clara County. The purpose of the study is to understand best practices, to educate our membership, and to explore ways to increase transparency and encourage participation in our local elections. Contact us: Website: http://www.lwv-sw-santaclara-valley.org/index.html E-mail: lwv.swscv@gmail.com Phone: 408-LWV(598)-1842 Address: P.O. Box 2865, Saratoga, CA 95070 Facebook: www.facebook.com/lwvswscv Twitter: lwv_swscv 456 3 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Executive Summary The League of Women Voters seeks to promote participation and transparency in our local elections for both voters and candidates. This study’s focus is an assessment of current election finance and reporting processes for city council and school board elections in Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. Results for the November 2016 election are analyzed. There were 14 candidates contending in the four city council races and 10 candidates contending in three school board races. All races were contested and one city council race was decided by a margin of only 10 votes. Campaign spending was relatively small for school board races. Detailed reporting is not required if less than $2000 is spent or raised. For council races total spending ranged from below $2000 to nearly $23,000. Minimum contributions for council races ranged from $20 to 100, maximum contributions from $300 to $2,000, and median contributions from $100 to $300. The median total contribution amount raised was about $6,000 and the median contribution size was about $100. Practices in city offices varied, depending on how the Form 460 campaign disclosure reports were made available. Ten candidates from the 2016 or 2014 election were interviewed to gain additional perspective on the election process. One notable response was that candidates invariably found the process of campaigning to be more enjoyable than anticipated, and especially found the opportunity to meet and talk with a wide cross section of people in their district to be both enjoyable and give them valuable perspective. As part of this study, comparisons were made to additional local election regulations instituted by nearby cities, including maximum contribution limits, voluntary expenditure limits, term limits, and disclosure of top donors in campaign advertisements. As a result of the study we have several major findings that we believe may promote participation and transparency in our local elections for both voters and candidates. . We encourage our League members along with our community members and the leadership of our local cities to discuss, debate, and consider these findings. The findings are presented in Section 9 of this report and are briefly summarized here: • We encourage our cities to post on their websites detailed candidate guidelines with links to sources of candidate training. • We recommend cities scan and post all candidate Form 460, 470, and 497 reports on their city website within 48 hours of the filing dates. • We encourage our cities to post more information during election season on their city website regarding candidates running for city council positions. • We encourage our cities to discuss and consider the relative merits of voluntary spending limits or (non-family) campaign donation limits. • We suggest that cities consider bearing a portion of the cost (currently about $1,500 to $1,800) of the candidate statement for the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters. • We encourage our school boards to consider sharing the cost of the candidate statement to encourage qualified candidate participation in school board elections and to get the candidate’s statement out to the voters. • We encourage school boards to discuss and consider the merits of term limits for our local school boards in order to bring forth new candidates and new ideas. 457 4 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley 1. Introduction Local elections are the foundation of democracy. Key tenets of democratic elections are participation and transparency. Participation means to ensure that we have informed voters engaged in the election process who support and encourage local leaders to stand for election and who participate in the governance of our communities. Transparency means that our citizens are well informed about our candidates, their positions, their sources of financial support, and their expenditures. To paraphrase Justice Louis Brandeis, sunlight is “the best of disinfectants.” In democratic elections we strive for a process that is fair, transparent, and available to all. Hence, we should do everything possible to encourage and make the processes of participation and transparency as convenient as possible. Several areas of improvement and opportunities for improvement in participation and transparency have occurred in recent years. There have been major improvements in the convenience of registering to vote and voting in California in local, state and national elections. While there have been significant changes in election finance law due to Supreme Court decisions over the last 15 years, there remain certain tools which can and have been utilized at the state, county and local level to control the size of candidate contributions and spending. In addition, current laws requiring detailed reporting of contributions and expenditures help provide transparency to voters. A particularly significant change over the last two decades is the advance of the Internet as a convenient and rapid source of information for all citizens. Nearly everyone in our community has access to the Internet at home, on mobile devices or at libraries. Information can be obtained at one’s convenience, whether at a coffee shop with friends or at home in the middle of the night. The ability of cities to place well-organized and relevant local election information on a city’s website provides a powerful tool to support transparency. A city’s website can and should provide trusted information that can be easily found by both voters and candidates when and where they need it. Many cities in Santa Clara County are pioneering the use of their websites to communicate to voters and candidates. Much is still being learned as to how to most effectively and conveniently provide the information. What is clear, however, is that every city needs to set a priority to develop ways to provide election information to its citizens in an effective and convenient manner. This policy can be accomplished by maintaining in-house staff expertise or through contract support. 2. Study Objective The study’s objective is to promote participation and transparency in our local elections for both voters and candidates. The study examines current local election finance and reporting processes, regulations, and experiences for city council and school board elections in Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. We have included a brief analysis of the election results, the election reporting processes, and election spending, as well as conducted interviews with local candidates. We have also examined local election processes of other nearby cities in Santa Clara County. The study concludes by identifying several “best practices” based on our analysis that we believe are worthy of consideration and further dialogue by our League membership, our community and the leadership of our local cities. Our purpose is to educate our members, inform our community, and encourage best practices for elections. 458 5 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley 3. Summary of November 2016 Election Results City and town council elections were contested in all four races held in the SWSCV League’s area (Table I). All school board and high school board races were also contested (Table II). We are happy to note the active participation of our citizens in standing for candidacy this past election. The results in Table I for Monte Sereno showed that as few as ten votes were the deciding factor in winning that city council seat, with as few as 2 votes separating the top two candidates, supporting the old adage: every vote counts. Incumbency is seen from the tables to be an important, but not a determining, factor in the election outcome. As shown in Table I, the amount of money spent by candidates on their campaign varied widely. Total expenditures for city council races ranged from a high of nearly $23,000 to less than $2000. Please note that total contributions or expenditures below $2000 do not trigger detailed contribution and expenditure reporting, so that exact expenditure amounts below $2000 are not always available. Detailed comparisons were not made to other cities in the area, but, in general, local expenditures for council seats were lower than in the more populated cities in the south Bay Area. Expenditures for school board races were small and below the detailed reporting threshold of $2000. Candidates engage voters, become known, and get their message out in many ways and campaign spending is only one factor in determining election results. Incumbents are seen to have won 4 and lost 1 of the 8 positions for city council seats in this past election. Non-incumbents won the other 4 positions and lost in 5 races. Table I. City Council Elections, November 2016 Campbell Candidate Incumbent Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A - 8063 32.7 E1 $22,845 B - 7102 28.8 E $2,232 C - 5710 23.1 $16,487 D - 3793 15.4 $12,964 Los Gatos Candidate Incumbent Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A I2 9721 44.4 E $16,834 B I 7563 34.6 E $1,812 C - 4602 21.0 - $814 Monte Sereno Candidate Incumbent Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A - 767 26.3 E <$20003 B - 765 26.3 E <$2000 C I 755 25.9 - $3466 D - 626 21.5 - <$2000 Saratoga Candidate Incumbent Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A I 8748 39.3 E $7,675 B I 7449 33.4 E $5,054 C - 6075 27.3 - $20,405 1 E = elected 2 I = incumbent 3 If candidate raises or spends less than $2000, itemization is not required and short Form 470 can be used. 459 6 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Table II. School Board Elections, November 2016 Los Gatos Saratoga Joint Union High School Candidate Incumbent Votes % Vote Result A I 11968 30.4 E B I 11856 30.1 E C - 8686 22.0 - D - 6879 17.5 - Los Gatos Union Elementary School District Candidate Incumbent Votes % Vote Result A - 6359 34.5 E B - 6195 33.7 E C - 5849 31.8 - Saratoga Union Elementary School District Candidate Incumbent Votes % Vote Result A - 5842 39.5 E B - 4660 31.5 E C - 4302 20.0 - One notable expense for low budget campaigns is the cost of including one’s candidate statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet. This information packet includes the sample ballot and is mailed to all voters. There is a charge for including the candidate statement to cover a share of the county’s printing and mailing expense based on census population data for the election district. For council races in Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga the charge is $1830, $1790, $1520, and $1800, respectively. The cost is similar for school board races in our area. This additional candidate statement fee is due immediately upon filing to run. By law this cost can be borne by the candidate, by the local district (city or school board), or can be a shared cost. In our area, the city of Campbell charges candidates for council a $300 filing fee and pays for the balance of the candidate statement cost. This practice of sharing a substantial fraction of the fee helps to reduce the possibility that the size of this initial fee will discourage qualified candidates from running for office. The importance of the candidate statement is that voters often perceive a lack of seriousness or effort on the candidate’s part if the statement is missing, whereas, it can be a serious cost consideration for low budget campaigns. In reality many candidates forgo this expense even though that will reduce information available to voters and may leave a negative impression with some voters. We consider the Campbell practice of sharing the candidate statement fee to be a best practice. It both encourages participation by candidates and assures the availability of candidate information to voters. 4. Summary of State Election Reporting Requirements (2016) California state laws regulate campaign contribution and expenditure reporting through the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). All candidates for public office must file candidate information and campaign disclosure reports during the course of the election. Candidates who raise or spend less than $2000 may file a short “Form 470” report, whereas those who raise or spend $2000 or more in a calendar year must file a more detailed Form 460 report. Form 460 reports must identify the name, address, occupation, and amount of all contributions that are cumulatively of $100 or more from a single source. It also must detail all campaign expenditures of $100 or more by category, as well as list campaign loans and in-kind contributions. Contributions of $100 or more in cash, money orders, traveler’s check or cashier’s check are forbidden. For contributions 460 7 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley of $1,000 or more received after the Oct. 22nd filing date and before election day, a Form 497 must be filed within 24 hours of receiving the contribution. 5. Local Election Laws in our Area and in Nearby Cities State law authorizes cities to enact additional election requirements as long as they do not conflict with or prevent compliance with the California Political Reform Act. The Act, which is implemented by the FPPC, specifies the content and timing of candidate campaign statement filings for city office. Additional local requirements can take the form of disclosure/disclaimer obligations or reporting requirements. Some local cities have instituted additional election finance regulations as given in Tables III for the cities in our area and in Table IV for other cities in Santa Clara County. Table III. SWSCV League area: City council election regulations City Maximum contribu- tion limits Voluntary expenditure limit Term limits1 Election finance posting2 Search- enabled municipal code on web Other election regulations or services Campbell No No Two 4-yr. terms3 No Yes Los Gatos No No No No Yes Monte Sereno No No Two 4-yr. terms4 No Yes Saratoga No No No5 No Yes 1 “Term limits” refers to the number of consecutive terms an officeholder may serve in that office. 2 Campaign finance statements (Form 460, etc.) posted on city website 3 Eligible for re-election or appointment after 22 months have elapsed since last served in that office. 4 Eligible for re-election or appointment after 2 years have elapsed since last served in that office. 5 Saratoga voters passed an advisory measure in 1992 to have a two 4-yr. term limit for city council members. However the measure was nonbinding and in at least one recent instance it was not followed. Additional local election regulations include maximum contribution limits, voluntary expenditure limits (VEL), term limits, and disclosure of top donors in campaign advertisements. Five nearby cities have voluntary expenditure limits. However, our local area cities do not have such limits. Some cities also provide special benefits to candidates to encourage the adoption of voluntary spending limits. For example, in Mountain View if a candidate accepts a voluntary expenditure limit and pays an initial $500, the city will pay the balance of the cost of the candidate statement printing in the Voter Information Pamphlet (statement printing cost was about $2,020 in 2016). This policy appears to have proven an effective incentive to council candidates, as all candidates accepted the voluntary expenditure limits in the 2016 election. In addition, Mountain View recently enacted a law requiring the top 5 contributors be identified in campaign advertisements. For small print ads (≤ 20 sq. in.), only the top 3 contributors of ≥ $2500 need to be listed. As seen in Tables III and IV, Campbell, Sereno, and 5 nearby cities outside our area impose a term limit of two consecutive terms for city council office. Term-limited councilors can again become a member of council by reappointment or candidacy after a typical waiting period of 1 to 2 years. One concern that has been expressed for cities with a small population, such as Monte Sereno (population 3540), is that it can be difficult to find qualified candidates willing to serve. 461 8 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Table IV. Nearby cities council election regulations City Maximum contribu- tion limits Voluntary expenditure limit (VEL) Term limits1 Election finance posting2 Search- enabled municipal code on web Other election regulations or services Cupertino No $33,000 for 2016 Two 4-yr. terms3 Yes Yes Posts candidate information on web Gilroy $750 Total of $1/resident No Yes Yes Additional pre- election filing for period 10/23-11/1/16 Los Altos No No No No Yes Los Altos Hills No No Two 4-yr. terms4 Yes Yes Milpitas $250 No No Yes Yes Morgan Hill No No No No Yes Mountain View No $24,0735 No Yes Yes6 Disclose top contribu- tors in advertisements7 Palo Alto No $14,000 Two 4-yr. terms Yes Yes $25 filing fee waved if 100 signatures on petition. $50 minimum contribution reporting San Jose $600 No No Yes Yes Santa Clara $270 $550 with VEL $40,5008 Two 4-yr. terms4 Yes Yes City pays half of candidate statement cost if VEL accepted Sunnyvale No No Two 4-yr. terms9 Yes Yes 1 Consecutive terms 2 Campaign finance statements (Form 460, etc.) posted on city website 3 Total of 10 years appointed + elected. Eligible for re-election or appointment after 354 days. 4 Eligible for re-election or appointment after 2 years 5 2016 limit. The VEL increases by 3% per year. City will pay the balance of the candidate statement cost for candidates who accept the voluntary expenditure limit and pay an initial $500. 6 An extensive array of city documents is posted on the web with search options available. 7 Disclose top 5 donors. For print ads ≤ 20 square inches must disclose top 3 contributors of $2500 or more. 8 2016 limit. VEL is indexed to San Francisco Bay Area CPI 9 Eligible for re-election after 4 years. A few cities in Santa Clara County have contribution limits for city council races. The limits range from $250 (Milpitas) to $600 (San Jose) for a single donor. These limits do not apply to the candidates’ own contributions. In the city of Santa Clara, the size of the contribution limit is larger if voluntary expenditure limits are accepted. In this case the November 2016 election limit was $550 per donor if voluntary expenditure limits were accept, and $270 otherwise. Most cities adjust contribution limits for inflation in subsequent election years. A notable difference seen in Tables III and IV between the cities in our local area and nearby cities is the practice of posting campaign filing reports on the city website. For example, nine of the eleven nearby cities posted key filing documents on their websites, usually within 1 to 3 days of their filing dates (e.g., Sept. 24th and Oct. 22nd during the 2016 fall election). In contrast, none of the cities in our local area posted campaign reports. The Form 460 report is particularly important from a transparency perspective. It includes a listing of donor names and donation amounts and dates. Loans to the 462 9 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley campaign, campaign expenditures and purpose, and total amounts raised and spent are also listed. Thus, one can quickly see if unusually large amounts of money are being raised and spent, and, if so, know the sources and uses of the funds. 6. Summary of Interview Findings It is important that qualified candidates run in local elections. Our cities depend on good leadership and local offices provide a primary source of future candidates for higher office. Therefore, to better understand the influence of current election laws and finances, campaign issues, and potential best practices from the candidate’s perspective, our study committee conducted ten interviews with candidates. Candidates who ran in each of the four local city council elections (Table I) in the fall of 2016, or in a few cases in the fall of 2014, were interviewed. Both candidates who were successful and those who were not successful were interviewed. Two candidates who ran in local high school and elementary school board races were also interviewed. The interview questions are attached in Appendix A. The interviews were found to be enlightening. All interviews were transcribed. However, these are not included here to honor the promise to maintain the anonymity of interviewees and their specific answers. Here, we summarize several findings and recurring themes heard in the interviews. All candidates interviewed especially liked the opportunity to meet and talk with a wide cross section of people in their district. Candidates invariably found the process of campaigning to be more enjoyable than anticipated. One hears more voices and understands opinions of people to a greater extent as a candidate than even as a councilor. Also, one becomes more aware of the different needs and concerns found in the less and more affluent areas of the community. It was also felt that by meeting and talking directly with people and by hearing the candidates speak in candidate forums, the voter is better able to see the differences in candidates, in contrast to reading literature or seeing social media posts where candidates may seem to be more similar to each other. Fund-raising was the least enjoyable, and often most challenging, aspect of running for office. Even though it was not as hard as sometimes anticipated, fund- raising remained challenging for many and was a major barrier for most candidates in deciding to run for office. In some cases, concern about deceptive advertising by opponents or opposition from local neighborhood groups focused on a single issue was one of the less enjoyable aspects of the campaign. It was pointed out that countering candidate attacks by social media or mailings can become quite expensive. Candidates found that volunteering for public service, serving on boards, working with city government, and/or gaining marketing know-how prior to running for office was invaluable to their candidacy. For example, experience on a planning or other city commission, on foundation or company boards, or in a leadership position at local schools or service clubs was particularly useful. Marketing experience also was a great help. At first, candidates found election laws complicated and complex to follow. Santa Clara County runs an orientation training workshop for people running for local government offices. The training includes detailed information on candidate reporting laws, regulations, and sources of helpful information for candidates. Candidates who took this training found it to be a particularly valuable starting point in running for election. 463 10 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley The requirement to pay for the cost of printing the candidate statement, which is currently around $1500 to $1800 in our local elections, was an aspect that some candidates felt was unfair. The dilemma is that if one does not pay this cost to have the statement appear in the Voter Information Packet that is mailed to all voters, it can often be perceived as though the candidate is not serious and did not bother to write up a statement. Yet, to have to bear this cost at the very beginning of one’s run for office created an impediment to running for some first-time candidates Several candidates cited one area of law that seemed unfair as currently interpreted. It is that one has to recuse himself or herself as an appointed member of a commission, for example, a planning commission, from a decision if a donation of greater than $250 has been received, within a certain period of time, from a party to the proceedings. However, local elected officials, such as a city councilor, do not have to recuse themselves (FPPC Section 84308. See FPPC Campaign Manual 1, chapter 5, section C. http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Campaign%20Manuals/Manual_1/Manual- 1-Chapter-5-Contribution-Restrictions.pdf.) The law on such restrictions originally appeared quite broad, but was narrowed considerably in its application due to the definition of the term “Agency” whereby “local agencies whose members are elected by the voters” were expressly exempted. A significant number of candidates felt there should be more information posted on the web and that it should be easier to find. The information should especially include contributions and expenditures being made to and by candidates, and it needs to be easy for local people to find this information. For example, some candidates wondered that even though several cities send the state reporting disclosure Form 460 for donations and expenditures by email if requested, why not have candidate’s reporting information posted on the city website in an easy to find location for all our voters? Opinion on campaign donor limits or spending limits was mixed. It was generally recognized that newcomers needed to spend more than incumbents on a campaign. Some respondents felt that reasonable limits could be set ($20,000 to $30,000) and still allow newcomers to get their messages out. Others felt that voluntary spending limits would be reasonable and that tying these to donation limits made sense. Candidates’ personal decisions on the size of donations they accepted varied widely. In general, most candidates emphasized that it was critical in a local election to be allowed to spend their own money on their campaign (as is allowed by law). Many were comfortable with some limits on donation size (for example in the $250 to $600 range), as long as contributions from family members were not limited. In one case support was expressed for mandatory term limits (e.g., two consecutive terms and then sit out one term before running again) to encourage bringing new ideas into the deliberating body. Some candidates felt it was better if most contributions were raised from inside their city/district and that voters should know what money is being raised from outside their area. Others said that contributions from outside are fine if people know you and want to support you. It was pointed out that it is more important to know about the connectivity, i.e., from whom the money came and how they are connected to the campaign (business associates, family, friends, a particular special interest, etc.). In general, full disclosure seemed to be the most important aspect of maintaining an informed electorate. It was suggested that the Voter Registrar should receive more financial support. The issue is one of who is watching financially during an election. Newspapers no longer 464 11 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley look at this information because they think it is not newsworthy enough. Local groups and voluntary posting of information might help in this regard. It was suggested that perhaps the LWV could help shine light on election finance, for example in pushing the posting of information on Voter’s Edge and on city websites. The new law in Mountain View requiring that the top donors be identified in campaign literature was an idea that seemed acceptable to many candidates in the case of large donations (e.g., above $1000). However a few opinions were expressed that there were already too many requirements or that this might create problems on small campaign pieces, such as postcards. We observe that highly qualified school board members often first become interested in the office as their children enter school. While it is important to have experienced members on a school board, having new school board members periodically rotate onto the board can bring fresh ideas and new energy. Based on discussions with community members and interviews, we observe that the incumbent often holds a significant advantage in local elections. This is especially the case for school board races and truly competitive races are not necessarily the case in local school board races. This advantage may be due to the combination of incumbents remaining for many terms with strong support and letter writing campaigns by their colleagues. While our observations are that the races were competitive this past year, there have often been years when no one ran against the incumbent. We suggest that school board term limits might encourage greater participation in government at this local level. For example, three consecutive 4- yr. terms for a total of 12 years might be sufficiently long to maintain needed experience on a board while ensuring the arrival of some new members. This might also result in an increased source of local community leaders who might run for higher office. 7. Summary of Election Finance Reporting Findings As part of our analysis, we reviewed all council candidate campaign disclosure reports for Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga for the 2016 election. The Form 460 campaign reports for total contributions or expenditures above $2000 provide detailed information on the contributions and expenditures. While, by law, these reports are always available from the city clerk’s office for voters and candidates to observe, we found their ease of access varied for our local cities. In some cases, the reports were scanned by the city clerk’s office and emailed upon request. In other cases, copies were provided, and in one case, the reports were only available for viewing at the clerk’s office, with copies available upon request at $0.10 per page. While other Santa Clara County cities also used a variety of methods to make the reports available, for 9 of the 11 cities the Form 460 reports were immediately made available online using the city’s website. From both a voter’s and candidate’s perspective, there is a significant advantage to being able to conveniently access candidate disclosure information on the web at any time one wants, in contrast to having to call, email, or go into the city clerk’s office during office hours. We suggest that a simple and low-cost approach to having the reports available online would be to scan and post them as downloadable files on the city website. While a majority of voters may not wish to review the reports, we believe the easy availability of the reports helps to ensure transparency and voter awareness. One feels an increased confidence, for example if concerns arise, that one can quickly and easily check out a candidate’s campaign finance reports. In light of these facts and issues 465 12 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley we suggest that posting of campaign reports on a city’s website is a best practice that should be adopted by all our local cities. The campaign disclosure reports for the November 2016 city council races showed that the extent of fundraising varied considerably for our local cities. Three of the four candidates in Monte Sereno did not raise or spend enough to reach the $2000 Form 460 report threshold and the fourth candidate spent only $2354 in cash of his/her own money, in addition to receiving a $1112 non-monetary contribution for a meet and greet event. In Los Gatos one candidate raised $16,687 ($1,283 non-monetary) with minimum, maximum and median contributions of $100, $2,000, and $100, respectively. The other two candidates used their own funds and spent only $1,812 and $814 on the campaign. In Saratoga one candidate raised $8,599, while a second candidate raised $3,302 and also spent $18,865 of his/her own funds. Minimum contributions were $50 and $100, maximum contributions were $1,000 and $750, and median contributions were $200 and $350, respectively. A third candidate used $5,054 of his/her own funds. For Campbell, contributions were $2,255, $9,285, $12,270, and $22,650 for the four candidates, with candidates making additional contributions of their own money to their campaigns in amounts ranging from 0 to $8000. Minimum contributions ranged from $20 to $100, maximum from $300 to $2,000, and median contributions from $100 to $300. Thus, the level of funds raised varied widely, extending as high as in the low $20,000 range, the median total contribution amount raised was about $6,000 and the median contribution size was about $100. The amount spent on campaigns is summarized in Table I. As discussed there, total spending ranged from near $23,000 to below $2,000. While the candidates’ choices in how to most effectively spend their funds varied considerably, the categories of campaign literature, mailing, and postage accounted for the major expenses and were, on average, 49% of the amount spent. The category of campaign paraphernalia accounted for 11% of funds spend on average, while web and information technology service spending was only 8%. 8. Observations on the Changing Landscape in Local Election Campaigning The widespread use of the World Wide Web and the recent increase in popularity of social media have changed campaign strategies for the way election funds are raised and spent at the national level. At the local level one may anticipate an increasing impact on elections, with a need for candidates to carefully balance expenditures for traditional campaign literature printing and mailing with the use of candidate websites and social media as important ways to reach voters. During our interviews several candidates commented on the importance of social media in getting their messages out to voters. The ability to track the number of “looks” on a candidate’s website and social media page and, for example, to correlate “looks” with social media posts and use of Facebook or of other media’s “push” posts, have given candidates new tools to fine tune their campaigns. In one case, numbers were cited which indicated that social media may be a more cost effective method of reaching voters than traditional campaign websites, and that the use of social media may have been a deciding factor in their election victory. Thus, while personal contact through door knocking, literature drops, candidate forums, and information posting on websites will remain essential features of communication to voters, the use of social media may increasingly provide important leverage for campaigns. 466 13 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley 9. Major Findings • We encourage our cities to post on their websites detailed candidate guidelines with links to sources of candidate training. Potential candidates do not always have the information needed to launch an effective campaign and may be intimidated by the election process. Many city clerks’ offices provide a package of guidelines for potential candidates. In some best practice cases for nearby cities we observed such guidelines posted on the web along with links to FPPC guidelines, to YouTube training videos, the candidate training workshop run by the county, and to many other sources of nuts-and-bolts information on where to obtain additional help. Lowering the barrier for our city’s leading citizens to become candidates encourages participation and is in everyone’s interest. • We recommend cities scan and post all candidate Form 460, 470, and 497 reports on their city website within 48 hours of the filing dates. Currently the method by which voters are able to view candidate contribution and expenditure reports is different among the four cities in our area and none are posted on the city website. Once set up, we believe the scanning and posting process is not necessarily expensive or time consuming. In contrast to our cities, nine nearby cities make this information available online, providing greater transparency in the election process. • We encourage our cities to post more information during election season on their city website regarding candidates running for city council positions. For example, the candidate statement, links to the candidate’s web page, the location and date of upcoming candidate forums, the League of Women Voters “Voter’s Edge” website, etc. could be posted as trusted sources of unbiased information for voters. Other forms of social media might also be considered by cities as additional means of promoting citizen awareness and participation in city elections. • Some nearby cities have adopted voluntary spending limits and/or limits on the total donation amount from a single source. We encourage our cities to discuss and consider the relative merits of voluntary spending limits or (non-family) campaign donation limits from the perspective of limiting outside influence in cases of extreme campaign finance spending. Voluntary spending limits might be combined with paying a part of the candidate statement’s fee (typically $1500 to $1800) in the Voter Information Pamphlet. This expense at the outset of filing for office is an impediment to prospective candidates. These practices could encourage participation of qualified candidates with limited resources in our local elections, as well as increase campaign finance transparency to voters. • We suggest that cities consider bearing a portion of the cost (currently about $1,500 to $1,800 for our local cities) of the candidate statement for the Voter Information Pamphlet that is mailed to all voters to encourage candidate election participation and to increase information to voters. The importance of the candidate statement in the sample ballot is that voters often perceive a lack of seriousness or effort on the candidate’s part if the statement is missing, whereas in reality it can be a serious cost consideration for low budget campaigns. We consider as a best practice the approach taken in Campbell of sharing the candidate statement fee, whereby the candidate pays a $300 filing fee and the city pays the balance of the cost so that all candidate statements are included,. 467 14 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley • An impediment for some highly qualified candidates, who might otherwise run for local school board elections, is the high cost to place the candidate statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet. Each district’s governing board determines whether the district or the candidate will bear the cost of the statement. Since local school boards are a fundamental aspect of our democratic process and often the first step to higher public office, we encourage our local school boards to consider bearing a part of the cost of candidate statements to encourage qualified candidate participation in school board elections and to get the candidate’s statement out to the voters. • We suggest that term limits for school boards after a sufficiently long period of service, for example after three consecutive 4-yr. terms (12 years), would encourage participation in government at the local level and could provide an increased source of local community leaders who might run for higher office. We therefore encourage our local school boards to discuss and consider the merits of term limits for our local school boards, in order to bring forth new candidates and new ideas. 10. Concluding Remarks We encourage our League members along with our community members and the leadership of our local cities to discuss, debate, and consider the above major findings of this study. As a nonpartisan political organization, the League of Women Voters encourages informed and active participation in government. It is our hope that this study will help in that effort. We also would like to encourage candidates and voters to take advantage of the Voters’ Edge California website, http://votersedge.org/ca, during election season. This nonpartisan website is hosted by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund and by MapLight. Voters’ Edge California neither supports nor opposes political parties, ballot measures, or candidates for public office. Rather, it provides a source of information on candidates and measures prior to elections. Candidates are invited to post information on themselves and their goals and League members prior to posting approve all material. By entering a zip code you can review the information for all candidates and measures in your area, and by entering your street address you can view your sample ballot for the election. Finally, we would like to express our heartfelt appreciation to the candidates and city clerks who contributed their time to help us in the study and to the League members who encouraged and supported this study. Thank you. 468 15 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Appendix A. LWV-‐SWSCV Local Election Finance Study Interview Questions 1. What aspect of the campaign did you enjoy most? Least? 2. What experiences prior to running for Council were most helpful in your decision to run? 3. Are there any aspects of the election laws that you found difficult to follow or you felt were unfair? 4. What changes or additions to the election laws would you suggest to make the process fairer to candidates and more transparent to voters? 5. Was your ability to finance your campaign a limiting issue? Do you favor additional limits on campaign contributions? Campaign spending? As an example, Santa Clara has a contribution limit of $260 per person, or $520 if the candidate accepts a voluntary total spending limit of $25,000. San Jose has a limit of $500 per person for councilors. 6. To review campaign donation and expenditure reports for smaller cities such as ours, citizens must go to the city offices. To increase voter transparency, would you favor requiring these reports to be posted on the web, similar to the current process for larger cities and state offices?* Did you consider posting your total contributions raised and top funding donors on your website or on LWV’s Voters’ Edge website? 7. Do you think it is significant where your contributions are raised (e.g., from sources inside vs. outside your city)? Roughly, what % of your campaign donations do you think came from outside your city? 8. Would you favor any requirements on campaign reporting in addition to those currently required? As an example, Mountain View recently passed a law to require a candidate’s top 3 donors be identified in campaign literature. *While the annual subscription expense for web submission of state-‐required reports is several thousand dollars, it allows for online reporting for city councilors, officers, and commissioners, alleviating the City Clerk from collecting and then having to submit paper versions of the reports to the state. 469