HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 20-072 Certifying Palm Villa EIRI-1
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS FOR
THE PALM VILLAS SARATOGA PROJECT
I.INTRODUCTION
The City of Saratoga (City), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final
Environmental Impact Report for The Palm Villas Saratoga Project (the “Project”) (the
“Final EIR” or “EIR”). The Final EIR is a project-level EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the
State CEQA Guidelines.1 The Final EIR consists of the January 2020 Draft Project
Environmental Impact Report (the “Draft EIR”), the comments received during the public
review period, responses to the comments, and any revisions to the Draft EIR as a result of
public agency and public comments.
In determining to approve the Project, which is described in more detail in Section II, below,
the City makes and adopts the following findings of fact and adopts and makes conditions of
project approval all of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all based on
substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding (administrative record). Pursuant
to Section 15090(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR was presented to the
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR prior to making the findings in Sections II through XII, below, and
the Planning Commission determined that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of
the City. The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the Final EIR and other
evidence in the administrative record.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As fully described in Final EIR, the Project involves the construction and operation of a
Residential Care Facility for the Elderly 2 consisting of two buildings (herein referred to as
Building 1 and Building 2) on two adjacent currently undeveloped lots (herein referred to as
Lot 1 and Lot 2).3 The two buildings have been designed to function as a single complex.
One building would be for individuals with mild stage Alzheimer’s and dementia and the
second for individuals with advanced stage Alzheimer’s and dementia. The proposed project
(including both buildings) would include a combined total of 78 beds, related support
functions (such as food service, pharmacy, laundry, administration, etc.), 48 parking spaces,
landscaping (including removal of some trees), utility connections, and an extension of
Saratoga Creek Drive to the south by approximately 150 feet (including a bifurcated portion
at the end for fire truck turnaround).
1 The State CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.
2 Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly are also sometimes referred to as “Senior Living Facility,”
“Assisted Living,” or “Board and Care” facilities.
3 "Lot" means a parcel of land consisting of a single lot of record. City Code Section 15-06.420.
Exhibit A
I-2
In addition to the proposed project, the EIR analyzed four alternatives: the No Project/No
Build Alternative, Reduce Project Alternative, Landscaping Alternative, and the General
Plan and Zoning Change Alternative. All of these alternatives will be discussed in Section
VII below.
A.Project Objectives
The project objectives are as follows:
1.Provide a licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly with a special designation
for Alzheimer’s/Dementia Memory Care (Memory Care facility) to assist in meeting
the needs of the growing local aging population living with dementia in the City.
2.Fulfill the City’s “Age-Friendly” goals for its significant aging population by adding
to the diversity of local services for seniors, as a significant and growing population,
so that local residents can remain in the community as they age.4,5
3.Implement the project sponsor’s vision to build a new state-of-the-art Memory Care
facility and operational model based on industry experience.
4.Establish a Memory Care facility with sufficient occupancy capacity to support
operational functionality and economic viability.
5.Provide non-seasonal, assistance service employment in a high-quality environment,
adding to the number and diversity of local jobs.
III.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A.Environmental Impact Report
On February 7, 2019, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR to
the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and
the public. The NOP was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies and the
public for a total of 30 days, ending on March 11, 2019, during which time the City held a
public scoping meeting on February 26, 2019. The purpose of this meeting was to provide the
public and governmental agencies with information on the proposed project and the CEQA
process and to give attendees an opportunity to identify environmental issues that should be
considered in the EIR. Attendees were invited to mail or email their comment letters to the City
4 The City of Saratoga 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element indicates growth in the population of
“retired and senior residents.” Retired (55–64 years) and senior citizen (65+ years) were 35% of the City’s
population in 2012. (City of Saratoga. 2014. 2015–2023 Housing Element. Adopted November 19,
2014.https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/45/
Housing-Element-2015---2023-Dated-November-2014-PDF.
5 Furthermore, the City is one of 10 cities that have been designated as age-friendly cities by the World Health
Organization’s Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities. Accessed November 8, 2019.
https://www.agefriendlysiliconvalley.org/.
I-3
during the 30-day NOP public review period by no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 11, 2019. A
total of 13 letters and emails were received during the public review period.
The Draft EIR was made available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies,
and organizations for a 30-day comment period starting on January 31, 2020 and ending
March 2, 2020. In accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City
published a notice of availability of the Draft EIR at the same time it sent out a notice of
completion to the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
IV. FINDINGS
The findings set forth below (the “Findings”) are made and adopted by the Saratoga Planning
Commission as the City’s findings under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines relating to
the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this Planning
Commission regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives
to the Project.
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR with regard to
project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of
each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these findings provide a
summary description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified in the Final EIR,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and state the City’s
findings and rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of
mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can
be found in the Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion
and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation
measures and the Project’s impacts.
When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past, present,
and probable future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a
summary of projections in an adopted planning document. In this case, the City has provided
a list of “past, present, and probably future projects.” The geographic scope of the cumulative
analysis varies depending on the specific issue area.
In adopting mitigation measures, below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure
identified in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such
mitigation measure is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of the Project in the
findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure
set forth below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a
clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall
control unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly
modified by these findings.
Section V, below, provides brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final EIR identified as
less than significant with adopted mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text
of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact. Any
I-4
impacts not listed under Section V are less than significant and do not require mitigation.
Topics analyzed but found to have less-than-significant impacts or no impacts, include
Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and
Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services and Safety, Recreation,
Transportation and Circulation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and
Wildfire.
V. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR
THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY
MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AND MADE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Project. It is
hereby determined that the impacts addressed by these mitigation measures will be mitigated
to a less-than-significant level or avoided by adopting and incorporating these mitigation
measures conditions into the Project. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). As explained in
Section VIII, below, the findings in this Section V are based on the Final EIR, the discussion
and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A.Impact 3.2-3: Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
The Final EIR finds that the Project could result in air pollutants traveling downwind from
the Project to off-site sensitive receptors site due to construction activities. Such particulate
matter without the implementation of fugitive dust control best management practices would
be considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of approval of the Project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
MM-AQ-1: Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, the project applicant, or its
designee, shall submit a Construction Exhaust Emissions Minimization Plan (Plan) to the
City of Saratoga (City) or its designated representative for review and approval. The plan
shall detail project compliance with the following requirements:
1.Where access to alternative sources of power and alternative-fueled
equipment are available, portable diesel engines shall be prohibited.
2.All diesel-powered equipment with engines equal or greater to 85
horsepower shall be powered by Tier 4 Final engines certified by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). If 85-horsepower or greater
engines that comply with Tier 4 Final emissions standards are not
I-5
commercially available, then the project applicant shall ensure that all
diesel-powered equipment equal to or greater than 50 horsepower will have
at least CARB-certified Tier 3 engines with the most effective Verified
Diesel Emission Control Strategies available for the engine type, such as
Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this
requirement).
a.For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available”
shall mean the availability of the Tier 4 Final equipment taking into
consideration factors such as (1) critical path timing of construction,
and (2) geographic proximity of the equipment location to the project
site.
b.The project applicant shall maintain and submit records to the City
concerning its efforts to comply with this requirement.
B.Impact 3.3-1: Would the project 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?
The potential direct and indirect impacts associated with construction and operation of the
project are considered substantial effects on a special-status species and, therefore, would be
considered significant impacts pursuant to the CEQA significance thresholds identified
above. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5, set forth
below, which are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of the Project, would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-BIO-1: All construction workers shall receive a worker environmental awareness
training (WEAT). The WEAT shall be prepared and conducted by a biologist
familiar with potentially occurring special-status species and sensitive
resources. The WEAT may also be conducted through a video or PowerPoint
presentation created by a qualified biologist specifically for this project. The
WEAT shall instruct workers on how to recognize all special-status
plant/wildlife species and their preferred habitat potentially present in the
project site, applicable laws and regulations regarding each species, actions
to take if a special-status species is observed during construction activities
including the name/contact information of the monitoring biologist, and the
nature and purpose of protective measures including best management
practices and other required mitigation measures. They shall also be
instructed as to sensitive resource areas, including wetlands and waters of the
United States, to avoid impacts within the project site other than where
I-6
impacts have been authorized, and relevant laws and regulations for each
resource.
MM-BIO-2: Forty-eight (48) hours prior to the initiation of construction activities, a
preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be performed by a
biologist knowledgeable of western pond turtle biology. If a turtle is observed
in the active construction zone, construction will be delayed and a qualified
biologist will be notified. Construction may resume when, through
coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the
biologist has either relocated the turtle to nearby suitable habitat outside the
construction zone, or, after thorough inspection, determined that the turtle has
moved away from the construction zone.
MM-BIO-3: Within two (2) weeks prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct
a habitat assessment for bats within the project site. The habitat assessment
shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not
be present) and for presence of guano within the project site and accessible
areas within 50 feet. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall
be flagged or marked. If bats (individuals or colonies) are detected, the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be notified
immediately. If a bat roosting or maternity colony cannot be completely
avoided, permittee and qualified biologist shall prepare a bat mitigation and
monitoring plan for CDFW review and approval.
MM-BIO-4: Within two (2) weeks prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct
a survey for potential woodrat nests at the project site, including a 10-foot
buffer surrounding the site. If any woodrat nests are discovered during the
survey, the nests will be avoided to the extent feasible. An exclusion buffer of
at least 10 feet from nests shall be established to avoid moving or bumping the
nests or the logs or branches on which the nests rest.
If establishing a buffer and avoiding the nests is not feasible, the nests shall be
dismantled and the nesting material moved to a new location outside the project’s
impact area so that it can be used by woodrats to construct new nests. Prior to nest
deconstruction, each active nest shall be disturbed by a qualified biologist to the
degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek cover out of the impact area.
Whether the nest is on the ground or in a tree, the nest shall be slightly disturbed
(nudged) to cause the woodrats to flee. For tree nests, a tarp shall be placed below
the nest and the nest dismantled using hand tools (either from the ground or from a
lift). The nest material shall then be piled at the base of a nearby tree or large
shrub outside of the impact area.
MM-BIO-5: If project construction is conducted during the nesting season (February 1
through August 30), a nesting bird survey shall be completed by a qualified
biologist within 2 weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities to
determine if any native birds are nesting within 250 feet of the proposed
disturbance area (500 feet for raptors).
I-7
If any active nests are observed during surveys, a suitable avoidance buffer
from the nests shall be determined by the qualified biologist. The avoidance
buffer distance shall consider such factors as the species of bird, topographic
features, intensity and extent of the disturbance, timing relative to the nesting
cycle, and anticipated ground disturbance schedule. Limits of construction to
avoid active nests shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or
other appropriate barriers and shall be maintained until the chicks have
fledged and the nests are no longer active, as determined by the qualified
biologist.
If ground-disturbing activities are delayed, then additional predisturbance
surveys shall be conducted such that no more than 7 days elapse between the
survey and ground-disturbing activities. If possible, remove any habitat (i.e.,
trees and vegetation) outside of the breeding bird season (September 1
through January 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
C.Impact 3.3-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potential indirect impacts to the California sycamore woodland include potential runoff and
siltation during and immediately after construction, which would be avoided and/or minimized
with the implementation of best management practices prior to any ground disturbance at the
project site. Vegetation removal, if any, from this community would be minimized to maintain
the erosion control functions that these species provide. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-6, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and made a condition
of approval of the Project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-BIO-1: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-6: The proposed project shall avoid all mapped riparian vegetation along
Saratoga Creek and shall avoid disturbance to the bed, bank and channel.
Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbance activities, the area between the
limits of disturbance and avoided habitat shall be fenced and sediment and
erosion control measures shall be utilized, which could include, but not be
limited to, biodegradable straw wattles free of weed seeds, silt fencing, or
biodegradable erosion control mats/blankets. No construction, staging areas,
or other ground-disturbance activities are permitted beyond the fencing.
If removal of riparian vegetation (pruning) is necessary, for project
implementation, a qualified botanist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to
identify and quantify the number of plants that could be potentially removed
(pruned). The botanist shall prepare a propagation and planting plan to offset
the loss of any vegetation/plants to be removed or disturbed. The plan shall
I-8
contain, at a minimum, the following components: goals and objectives; a
description of the extent of plants/vegetation to be removed or disturbed; plant
collection, propagation, and planting methods; locations on the project site in
which the plants will be transplanted; monitoring methods, timing, and
performance criteria; measures to be taken in the event that the propagation
and planting is not successful; and reporting requirements. The plan shall be
approved by the City. Propagation and planting shall occur on a 1:1 basis to
ensure no net loss of the California sycamore woodland community.
Furthermore, the qualified biologist is required to consult with CDFW over any
impacts to the stream zone, which include the riparian trees adjacent to
Saratoga Creek.
D.Impact 3.3-3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
There are no potential wetlands or other waters of the United States within the project site.
Saratoga Creek is a potential water of the United States located adjacent to the project site.
The proposed project would avoid direct impacts to Saratoga Creek by installing fencing
between the limits of disturbance and avoided habitat. Potential indirect impacts to the creek,
such as potential spills and incidental discharge of fill or project materials, could occur as a
result of project construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-
BIO -6 set forth above, which are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of the
Project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-BIO-1: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-6: See above for description of measure.
E.Impact 3.4-4: 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?
While human use of the proposed development may periodically inhibit daytime movement
of some wildlife species on the site, most wildlife species in the region tend to be more active
at night and, therefore, could be harassed or inhibited by visitors or residences of the
proposed development. In addition, building lighting could potentially impact wildlife
utilizing the creek as a nighttime migratory corridor. However, a majority of the riparian
vegetation along Saratoga Creek, which currently acts as a visual barrier between the project
site and creek, will be avoided by the project. Riparian vegetation, as well as the steep banks
of Saratoga Creek and the 6-foot-tall lattice fence proposed along the western perimeter of
Lot 1, would limit the amount of light exposure to the potential wildlife corridor following
project construction.
I-9
Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-6 would avoid/minimize potential direct and
indirect impacts to local or regional wildlife movements by informing construction workers
of the importance of avoiding Saratoga Creek and its riparian corridor, by installing fencing
between the limits of disturbance and avoided habitat, and by avoiding the creek to the extent
possible. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-6 set forth above, which are hereby
adopted and made a condition of approval of the Project, would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-BIO-1: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-6: See above for description of measure.
F. Impact 3.4-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
The proposed project site is dominated by vegetation indicative of disturbance. In general,
the site does not provide high-quality habitat for biological resources. The proposed project
would avoid Saratoga Creek and the trees along its banks, direct drainage away from the
creek, and implement MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-8 to avoid and/or minimize the potential
for direct and indirect impacts on sensitive biological resources. Implementation of the
project is expected to be consistent with local policies or ordinances protecting these
resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-8 set forth
above and below, which are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of the Project,
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-BIO-1: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-2: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-3: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-4: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-5: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-6: See above for description of measure.
MM-BIO-7: The proposed project shall be implemented in accordance with the Conditions
of Approval listed in Attachment 3 of the Arborist Report (dated December 4,
2017) prepared by the City of Saratoga and the Arborist Report (dated April
14, 2020) that are applicable to the proposed project.
I-10
MM-BIO-8: The proposed project shall be conducted in accordance with the Santa Clara
Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s Guidelines & Standards
for Land Use Near Streams, as applicable.
G.Impact 3.4-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
The project site is currently undeveloped and has historically been used for agricultural
purposes. Observation of the present conditions within the proposed project indicates that all
areas have been subject to a substantial degree of past disturbances related to agricultural
activities. No newly identified archaeological, cultural, or Tribal resources were recorded
during the pedestrian survey of the project site.
The project, as currently designed, appears to have a low potential for encountering intact
cultural deposits during ground-disturbing activities, and would have no impact to known
cultural resources. However, the potential still exists to encounter previously undiscovered
significant archaeological resources during project construction activities. To ensure that
impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant, should any such resources be
encountered during project grading and construction, the project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure (MM) -CUL-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
MM-CUL-1 set forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of
the Project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
MM-CUL-1: In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are
exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all earth-
disturbing work occurring in the vicinity (generally within 100 feet of the find)
shall immediately stop, and a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the
Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall be notified
regarding the discovery. The archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of
the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. If the
discovery proves significant under the California Environmental Quality Act
(14 CCR 15064.5[f]; California Public Resources Code, Section 21082) or
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 60.4), additional
work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data
recovery may be warranted.
H.Impact 3.4-3: Would the project disturb human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No known human remains or burial sites were discovered through pedestrian survey search,
Tribal outreach, or records search. However, the potential to encounter human remains
during project construction still exists. Per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code, if human remains are discovered during project construction, no further work shall
occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains until the county coroner has made
I-11
the necessary findings as to the origin of the remains. Furthermore, pursuant to California
PRC, Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until
recommendations for treatment have been made. As such, MM-CUL-2 has been incorporated
into the project and made a condition of approval to ensure that potential impacts would be
less-than-significant with mitigation by providing standard procedures in the event that
human remains are encountered during project construction.
Mitigation Measure:
MM-CUL-2: In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code,
if potential human remains are found, earth-disturbing work in the vicinity of
the find (generally 100 feet is sufficient) should immediately halt, and the
county coroner shall be notified of the discovery. The coroner will provide a
determination within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or
disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to
overlie additional remains, shall occur until a determination has been made.
If the county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be,
Native American, they shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources
Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify the person(s)
believed to be the most likely descendant (MLDs) from the deceased Native
American. The MLDs may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his
or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native
American human remains and recommend to the owner or the person
responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with
appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods.
The MLDs shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or
preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.
I.Impact 3.6-4 Would the proposed project could directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
No paleontological resources were identified within the project site as a result of the
institutional records search or desktop geological review, however, intact paleontological
resources may be present below the Holocene alluvial sediments where older, Pliocene and
Pleistocene sediments are anticipated. If intact paleontological resources are located on site,
ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the project, such as grading
during site preparation or excavations for basement levels, have the potential to destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site. As such, the project site is considered to be
potentially sensitive for paleontological resources, and without mitigation, the potential
damage to paleontological resources during construction associated with the project would be
considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM)-
GEO-1, would ensure that any encountered resources would be avoided or collected and
appropriately documented and salvaged under the supervision of a qualified paleontologist so
that impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure:
I-12
MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Monitor. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on
site, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) guidelines. The qualified paleontologist shall
attend the preconstruction meeting and a paleontological monitor shall be on
site during all rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing
activities in previously undisturbed, fine-grained Pliocene and Pleistocene
alluvial deposits. These deposits may be encountered at depths as shallow as
5–10 feet below ground surface. In the event that paleontological resources
(e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will
temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of
paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-
foot-radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is
completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to
recommence in the area of the find. Documentation of the appropriate salvage
and recovery of fossil specimens and their transfer to an appropriate
repository (e.g., University of California at Berkeley Museum of
Paleontology) shall be submitted to the City of Saratoga as evidence of
compliance with this mitigation measure.
J. Impact 3.15-1: 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:
1.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)?
There are no known tribal cultural resources (TCRs), as defined in PRC Section 21074,
identified within the project site or in its immediate vicinity. The project site has historically
been used for agricultural uses and is currently undeveloped. The California Historical
Resources Information System records search conducted for the project site did not identify
any previously recorded archaeological resources within the project site and 0.5-mile buffer.
Further, no California Native American tribes have responded with a request for consultation
or with information regarding TCRs affiliated with the project site. As stated, the proposed
project site has been previously disturbed, and no information regarding the presence of known
TCRs has been provided from the contacted California Native American tribes or from cultural
resource surveys or records. However, the potential for subsurface unknown TCRs to be
encountered during project ground-disturbing activities still exists. Mitigation Measure (MM)-
TCR-1, described below is designed to address impacts to unknown TCRs that may be
discovered during ground disturbance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-TCR-1 set
I-13
forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of the Project, would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
MM-TCR-1: If potential archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, or human
remains are discovered during project activities, then work shall cease in the
immediate vicinity of the find. If the unanticipated resource is archaeological in
nature, appropriate management requirements shall be implemented as outlined
in MM-CUL-1 (see Section 3.4, Cultural Resources) in conjunction with the
following provisions specific to the management of TCRs. A qualified cultural
resources specialist shall be contacted to inspect the find, and to assess if the
resource is of Native American origin or otherwise has potential to be considered
a tribal cultural resource. If the resource is a potential tribal cultural resource,
the lead agency shall be immediately contacted. Depending on the nature of the
find, if the lead agency determines, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21074 (a)(2), that the find appears to be a tribal cultural resource in its discretion
and supported by substantial evidence, the NAHC-listed tribes shall be contacted
and provided a reasonable period of time to make recommendations. These
representatives shall be provided the opportunity to inspect the find on site. The
lead agency shall review recommendations, enlisting the aid of a qualified
archaeologist or other specialists if needed, and move forward with management
options determined to be reasonable and feasible. The project may recommence
ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the find after it has complied with
agency-approved recommendations. If human remains are found, then the
procedures outlined in MM-CUL-2 shall be implemented.
2.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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
As previously described, the cultural resources assessment (Appendix D) concluded that the
project site does not contain known TCRs or archaeological resources. The Sacred Lands File
search conducted by the NAHC did not indicate that sacred sites have been recorded within
the project site or surrounding search area. However, the NAHC noted that absence of
specific site information in the Sacred Lands File does not imply absence of Native American
cultural resources. No California Native American tribes or individuals have identified
specific known TCRs associated with the project site, nor have any tribes responded to the
project notification letter sent by the lead agency. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
I-14
MM-TCR-1 set forth above, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of
the Project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
MM-TCR-1: See above for description of measure.
VI. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in which
the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.2(e); Public Resources Code § 21100(b)(5). Direct growth inducement
would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of substantial new housing
that would support increased population in a community or establishes substantial new
permanent employment opportunities. This additional population could, in turn, increase
demands for public utilities, public services, roads, and other infrastructure. Indirect growth
inducement would result if a project stimulates economic activity that requires physical
development or removes an obstacle to growth and development (e.g., increasing
infrastructure capacity that would enable new or additional development). It must not be
assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance
to the environment. State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d). Section 6.3 of the Draft EIR
analyzes the growth inducing impacts of the Project. As explained in Section VIII, below, the
findings in this Section VI are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is
hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
The proposed project is located in a developed area and would demand incremental increases
in public services (police, fire, and emergency services) given the nature of the project.
Utilities and service systems (water, wastewater, solid waste,
electricity/gas/telecommunications) already operate in the project vicinity and existing utility
and service system lines could be extended. however, the project would not require physical
improvements that would necessitate new public services infrastructure (i.e., a new police or
fire station) or an increase in utility and service systemwide capacity/ability (i.e., new utility
main) to address project-specific demand. No additional facilities/infrastructure beyond those
already planned for in the area would be required as a result of the project to maintain desired
levels of service.
In addition, the project site does not have existing roadway access. The construction of an
extension of Saratoga Creek Drive would provide new access to the two adjacent parcels of
the project site. This roadway, which was already planned as part of the prior subdivision of
the project site, could also serve undeveloped parcels to the south of the project site that are
zoned Professional and Administrative (PA), should they be developed with land uses in the
future. The extension of this section of Saratoga Creek Drive would represent a further step
towards infill development, but it would be urban growth within the context of the Saratoga
General Plan and was already approved as part of the prior subdivision of the project site.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to generate significant growth-inducing impacts.
I-15
VII.ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR analyzed four alternatives, examining the environmental impacts and
feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet project
objectives. The project objectives as presented in Chapter 2 (Project Description) and
Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR are listed above in Section II.A of these Findings;
the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, including feasible mitigation
measures identified to avoid these impacts, are analyzed in Chapter 3 (Environmental
Evaluation) of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 5
(Alternatives) of the Draft EIR.
The four alternatives to the proposed project include the No Project/No Build Alternative.
The No Project/No Build Alternative is a required element of an EIR pursuant to Section
15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines that examines the environmental effects if the project
were not to proceed. Additionally, the Reduced Project Alternative, Landscaping Alternative,
and General Plan and Zoning Change Alternative are part of the “range of reasonable
alternatives” that could result in a reduction in project impacts while achieving most of the
basic objectives of the project. Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A
brief discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the
alternatives. As explained in Section VIII, below, the findings in this Section VI are based on
the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this
reference.
A.The No Project/No Build Alternative
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the construction and operation of the facility,
including parking spaces, landscaping, utility connections, and an extension of Saratoga
Creek Drive to the south by approximately 150 feet, would not occur at the project site. The
project site would continue to be vacant and undeveloped with no change to any aspect of the
site.
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives because it
would not construct a RCFE or implement the project’s sponsors vision for construction of a
state-of-the-art Memory Care facility of sufficient occupational capacity to support
operational functionality and economic viability. Furthermore, it would not fulfill the City’s
“Age Friendly” goals, nor would it provide new opportunities for service employment.
For the foregoing reasons, the No Project/No Build Alternative is hereby rejected as
infeasible.
B.Reduced Project Alternative
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the project site would be developed with the same
building footprint as the proposed project (as shown in Figure 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5), but within
the building a reduced number of patient beds would be provided. Therefore, fewer patient
visitors are assumed. Building 2 would go from 30 to 22 beds (a reduction of 8 beds).
I-16
Conservatively, no change in the number of employees is assumed although fewer would
likely be necessary. This would be accomplished by reducing the number of double-
occupancy rooms from 15 to 7, with 8 rooms remaining single-occupancy. Under this
alternative, the square footage of Building 2 would remain the same, but no parking lifts
would be included in the basement, reducing parking in the basement from 10 to 6 spaces,
and at Building 2 from 26 to 22 spaces (a reduction of 4 parking spaces, which would still be
consistent with the City’s Municipal Code)6. The parking lift change is the only physical
development change proposed under this alternative in comparison to the proposed project.
No changes to Building 1 are proposed under this alternative.
Implementation of this alternative would result in impacts identical to the project for
aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water
quality, land use, tribal cultural resources, and wildlife. All other topics would also be similar
to, but likely incrementally less that the proposed project, as the anticipated patient
population would be reduced by up to 8 (corresponding to the reduced number of beds). Like
the project, this alternative would be subject to the recommended mitigation measures
described in this EIR and would result in similar but incrementally less, less-than significant
impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public
services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
Construction traffic trips generated by this alternative would also be incrementally less than the
proposed project due to the reduction in patient beds and that a lift would no longer be
constructed in the basement. The change in construction and operation traffic patterns under this
alternative is anticipated to be negligible. Operation-period traffic would also be incrementally
impacted by the reduction in patient beds and patient visitors, resulting in less vehicular trips.
However, like the proposed project, this alternative is anticipated to result in a similar Level of
Service (LOS) at the affected intersection as the proposed project. The modest reduction in
impacts related to the number of patient beds would also reduce the demand for energy (reduced
demand for electricity and gas), hazards and hazardous materials (reduced potential for spills and
exposure), public services (fewer police and fire calls for service), recreation services (reduced
need for parks/recreation), and utilities and service systems (reduced demand for water,
wastewater, and solid waste).
The Reduced Project Alternative would achieve most of the key objectives of the project, but
to a lesser extent than the proposed project with respect to providing a RCFE with sufficient
occupational capacity to support operational functionality and economic viability.
C.Landscaping Alternative
The Landscaping Alternative would revise the proposed project’s site plan (currently planned to
include trees, shrubbery, and groundcover) with additional landscaping and vegetation that would
6 City Municipal Code 15-35.030 “Schedule of off-street parking spaces” provides the ratio of required parking
spaces for new development in the City. Specifically, one (1) parking space is required for every two (2)
employees, and one (1) parking spaces is required for every three (3) guests or beds. Thus, the number of parking
spaces for the proposed project exceeds the requirement by 11 parking spaces, and the number of parking spaces
for Alternative 2 exceeds the requirement by eight (8) parking spaces.
I-17
complement and augment the proposed development plan, specifically along the northern
boundaries of Lot 1 and Lot 2 and eastern boundary of Lot 2 (refer to Figures 2-3, 2-3, and 2-4).
Introduced landscaping/vegetation would be designed to screen truck deliveries and facility
activities from public views from Saratoga Creek Drive (out to Cox Avenue) and Village Drive.
This alternative would further reduce the already less-than-significant impacts to visual character
by screening deliveries and project activities from public view, minimizing the prominence of
delivery vehicles, patient drop-off/pick-up, and visitors. For all other environmental topics, this
alternative would result in impacts identical to the proposed project. Like the project, the
Landscaping Alternative would be subject to the recommended mitigation measures described in
this EIR.
The Landscaping Alternative would achieve all of the key objectives of the project. It would
perform slightly better than the proposed project for the objective of creating a facility that is
visually harmonious with the existing character of the project site, since it would reduce the
visibility of trucks, patient pick-up/drop-off, and visitors.
D.General Plan and Zoning Change Alternative
Under Alternative 4 General Plan and Zoning Change Alternative, the project would add an
additional story to Building 1 (creating a three-story building) and require approval of a General
Plan Amendment to allow a three-story structure and a rezoning to allow for the height increase.
This alternative would also reduce the overall building footprint of Building 1 to be further away
from Saratoga Creek. Corresponding changes to the surrounding retaining wall, paving, and
landscaping on the northwest side of Lot 1 would also be incorporated. No changes to the
Building 2 basement, or overall number of beds or rooms, are assumed. No changes to Building
2 are proposed under this alternative.
For the purposes of environmental analysis, this alternative assumes that the building
footprint of Building 1 would be reduced by approximately 1,200 square feet (from a first
floor area of 7,537 square feet to 6,337 square feet, and a second story area of 7,677 square
feet to 6,477 square feet) and addition of a third-story of up to 2,600 square feet would be
added for a total building floor area of 15,414 (a net increase of 200 square feet).7
The General Plan and Zoning Change Alternative would further reduce the already less-than-
significant impacts to biological resources by increasing the setback from Saratoga Creek by
over 10 feet, and setting Building 1 further from the riparian area. It would also decrease the
amount of impervious surface proposed. For all other environmental topics except aesthetics
7 This conceptual alternative conservatively assumed that the first and second floors of Building 1 would be
reduced in size by 1,200 square feet (for a total reduction of 2,400 square feet), and up to 2,800 square feet (a
net increase of 200 feet to account for square footage necessary to accommodate amenities such as elevator,
stairs, and other building amenities required for additional stories) would be added to a third story. Per
project plans, the northwestern side of Building 1 is 105.41 feet (105 feet and 5 inches), thus a reduction of
1,200 square feet from the building footprint could result in an increased setback to the southeast, by
approximately 11.4 feet (1,200/105.41=11.38). This alternative would be subject to architectural review to
finalize square footages, potential foundation changes, and to satisfy any building requirements.
I-18
and land use, this alternative would result in impacts similar to the proposed project.
Assuming the basement level would be the same square footage and in the same location as
what is proposed by the project, ground disturbance at the site would be identical with
respect to potential impacts on cultural resources, geology and soils, hazard and hazardous
materials, and tribal cultural resources. If the basement-level square footage was reduced
consistent with the building (and if basement parking was moved to surface-level to
accommodate this reduction) the alternative could limit construction to locations further from
the creek, reducing the potential for impacts to biological resources to a greater extent). Like
the proposed project, this alternative would be subject to the recommended mitigation
measures described in this EIR.
With respect to visual resources, the General Plan and Zoning Change Alternative would
have increased impacts related to visual character and light and glare, as it would introduce a
third-story into an area that is dominated by one- and two-story buildings. Also, as Building
1 would be taller, any exterior lighting would likely have a greater area of spillover although
it would be, similar to the project, be required to face all lights downward. It should be noted
that the amount of third-story square footage would be less than the footprint of Building 1’s
first and second floor and therefore it likely would be setback from the existing adjacent
buildings with similar visual character (the other professional and administrative buildings to
the north). Existing sensitive receptors views of the alternative would, similar to the proposed
project, remain partially screened although a third-story may be more visible from some
locations. Specifically, receptors to the west (across Saratoga Creek and along De Havilland
Drive) would be separated by the creek and screened by existing riparian vegetation,
receptors to the east would be at screened by Building 2, and receptors to the north would be
separated by a parking lot and mature landscaping to the north. The area to the south and
southeast are vacant.
With respect to land use and planning, the General Plan and Zoning Change Alternative
would be inconsistent with existing zoning for the site. As currently zoned, structures cannot
exceed 30 feet in height or two stories and thus, this alternative would not meet those
requirements without a General Plan and zoning change.
The General Plan and Zoning Change Alternative would achieve all of the key objectives of
the project. However, it would add an additional story compared to the proposed project,
which does not exactly meet the planned vision of the project sponsor for a Memory Care
facility in terms of operational functionality.
E.Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project/No Build Alternative would result in the least environmental impacts and
would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the
CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project/No
Build Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among
the other alternatives. In this case, the environmentally superior alternative is the Reduced
Project Alternative, since it would incrementally reduce impacts to air quality, energy, GHG
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, public services and safety, recreation,
transportation, and utilities and service systems, when compared to the proposed project.
I-19
However, it should be noted that the proposed project would not result in any significant
impacts after implementation of the required mitigation measures.
For the foregoing reasons, the Reduced Project Alternative would be the environmentally
superior alternative because it would include fewer patient beds and generate less traffic,
thereby resulting in incrementally fewer impacts related to air quality, GHG, and noise, as
well as fewer service-driven demands, such as calls for public services and safety and
utilities and service systems.
VIII.INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final EIR for the Project, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, City staff reports relating to the Project and other
documents relating to public hearings on the Project, by reference, in their entirety. Without
limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation
measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the significance of
impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the Project, the determination of the
environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project.
IX. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the Project constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein.
Those documents and materials are available online at
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/447/Proposed-Palm-Villas-Saratoga-Project and at the City of
Saratoga Community Development Department, Planning Division located at 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070.
X. NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for
further review and comment when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after
public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. No
significant new information was added to the Draft EIR as a result of the public comment
process. The Final EIR responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies and makes
insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR does not identify any new
significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact.
For the foregoing reasons, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.
XI. SUMMARY
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City
determines that all significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
I-20
1276666.2
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule/Timing Monitoring/Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure (MM-) AQ-1:
Construction Exhaust Emissions Minimization Plan
Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, the project
applicant, or its designee, shall submit a Construction Exhaust
Emissions Minimization Plan (Plan) to the City of Saratoga (City)
or its designated representative for review and approval. The Plan
shall detail project compliance with the following requirements:
1.Where access to alternative sources of power and
alternative-fueled equipment are available, portable diesel
engines shall be prohibited.
2.All diesel-powered equipment with engines equal or
greater to 85 horsepower shall be powered by Tier 4 Final
engines certified by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB). If 85-horsepower or greater engines that comply
with Tier 4 Final emissions standards are not commercially
available, then the project applicant shall ensure that all
diesel-powered equipment equal to or greater than 50
horsepower will have at least CARB-certified Tier 3
engines with the most effective Verified Diesel Emission
Control Strategies available for the engine type, such as
Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (Tier 4 engines
automatically meet this requirement).
a.For purposes of this mitigation measure,
“commercially available” shall mean the availability
of the Tier 4 Final equipment taking into
consideration factors such as (1) critical path
timing of construction, and (2) geographic
proximity of the equipment location to the project
site.
b.The project applicant shall maintain and submit
records to the City concerning its efforts to comply
with this requirement.
Project applicant Prior to the issuance of a construction permit
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department, Public Works Department, applicant, contractor
Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1: Worker Environmental Awareness Training
All construction workers shall receive a worker environmental
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified biologist
Prior to the start of project construction
City of Saratoga – Community Development
Exhibit B
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule/Timing Monitoring/Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed
awareness training (WEAT) to be conducted by a qualified
biologist. The WEAT may also be conducted through a video or
PowerPoint presentation created by a qualified biologist
specifically for this project. The WEAT shall instruct workers on
how to recognize all special-status plant/wildlife species and their
preferred habitat potentially present in the project site, applicable
laws and regulations regarding each species, actions to take if a
special-status species is observed during construction activities
including the name/contact information of the monitoring biologist,
and the nature and purpose of protective measures including best
management practices (BMPs) and other required mitigation
measures. They shall also be instructed as to sensitive resource
areas, including wetlands and waters of the U.S., to avoid within
the project site other than where impacts have been authorized,
and relevant laws and regulations for each resource.
During project construction as necessary
Department and qualified biologist
MM-BIO-2: Preconstruction Survey for Western Pond Turtle
Forty-eight hours prior to the initiation of construction activities, a
preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be performed
by a biologist knowledgeable of western pond turtle biology. If a
turtle is observed in the active construction zone, construction will
cease and a qualified biologist will be notified. Construction may
resume when, through coordination with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the biologist has either relocated
the turtle to nearby suitable habitat outside the construction zone,
or, after thorough inspection, determined that the turtle has moved
away from the construction zone.
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified biologist
Forty-eight hours prior to the initiation of construction activities
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department and qualified biologist
MM-BIO-3: Preconstruction Survey for Bats
Within two (2) weeks prior to construction, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats within the project site.
The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of
potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and for
presence of guano within the project site and accessible areas
within 50 feet. Potential roosting features found during the survey
shall be flagged or marked. If bats (individuals or colonies) are
detected, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
shall be notified immediately. If a bat roosting or maternity colony
cannot be completely avoided, permittee and qualified biologist
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified biologist
Within two (2) weeks prior to the start of project construction
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department and qualified biologist
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule/Timing Monitoring/Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed
shall prepare a bat mitigation and monitoring plan for CDFW
review and approval.
MM-BIO-4: Preconstruction Survey for Woodrat Nests
Within two (2) weeks prior to construction, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a survey for potential woodrat nests at the project
site, including a 10-foot buffer surrounding the site. If any woodrat
nests are discovered during the survey, the nests will be avoided
to the extent feasible. An exclusion buffer of at least 10 feet from
nests shall be established to avoid moving or bumping the nests
or the logs or branches on which the nests rest.
If establishing a buffer and avoiding the nests is not feasible, the
nests shall be dismantled and the nesting material moved to a new
location outside the project’s impact area so that it can be used by
woodrats to construct new nests. Prior to nest deconstruction,
each active nest shall be disturbed by a qualified biologist to the
degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek cover out of the
impact area. Whether the nest is on the ground or in a tree, the
nest shall be slightly disturbed (nudged) to cause the woodrats to
flee. For tree nests, a tarp shall be placed below the nest and the
nest dismantled using hand tools (either from the ground or from
a lift). The nest material shall then be piled at the base of a nearby
tree or large shrub outside of the impact area.
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified biologist
Within two (2) weeks prior to the start of project construction
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department and qualified biologist
MM-BIO-5: Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds
If project construction is conducted during the nesting season
(February 1 through August 30), a nesting bird survey shall be
completed by a qualified biologist within 2 weeks prior to the
initiation of construction activities to determine if any native birds
are nesting within 250 feet of the proposed disturbance area (500
feet for raptors).
If any active nests are observed during surveys, a suitable
avoidance buffer from the nests shall be determined by the
qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer distance shall consider
such factors as the species of bird, topographic features, intensity
and extent of the disturbance, timing relative to the nesting cycle,
and anticipated ground disturbance schedule. Limits of
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified biologist
Prior to the start of project construction
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department and qualified biologist
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule/Timing Monitoring/Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed
construction to avoid active nests shall be established in the field
with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and shall be
maintained until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no
longer active, as determined by the qualified biologist.
If ground-disturbing activities are delayed, then additional
predisturbance surveys shall be conducted such that no more
than 7 days elapse between the survey and ground-disturbing
activities. If possible, remove any habitat (i.e., trees and
vegetation) outside of the breeding bird season (September 1
through January 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
MM-BIO-6: Riparian Vegetation
The proposed project shall avoid all mapped riparian vegetation
along Saratoga Creek. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbance
activities, the area between the limits of disturbance and avoided
habitat shall be fenced and sediment and erosion control
measures shall be utilized, which could include, but not be limited
to, biodegradable straw wattles free of weed seeds, silt fencing, or
biodegradable erosion control mats/blankets. No construction,
staging areas, or other ground-disturbance activities are permitted
beyond the fencing.
If removal of riparian vegetation (pruning) is necessary, for project
implementation, a qualified botanist shall conduct a
preconstruction survey to identify and quantify the number of
plants that could be potentially removed (pruned). The botanist
shall prepare a propagation and planting plan to offset the loss of
any vegetation/plants to be removed or disturbed. The plan shall
contain, at a minimum, the following components: goals and
objectives; a description of the extent of plants/vegetation to be
removed or disturbed; plant collection, propagation, and planting
methods; locations on the project site in which the plants will be
transplanted; monitoring methods, timing, and performance
criteria; measures to be taken in the event that the propagation
and planting is not successful; and reporting requirements. The
plan shall be approved by the City. Propagation and planting shall
occur on a 1:1 basis to ensure no net loss of the California
sycamore woodland community. Furthermore, the qualified
biologist is required to consult with CDFW over any impacts to the
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified biologist
Prior to the start of project construction
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department and qualified biologist
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 5
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule/Timing Monitoring/Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed
stream zone, which include the riparian trees adjacent to Saratoga
Creek.
MM-BIO-7: Saratoga Creek
The proposed project shall be implemented in accordance with the
Conditions of Approval listed in Attachment 3 of the Arborist
Report (dated December 4, 2017 and included as Appendix C-3)
prepared by the City of Saratoga and the Arborist Report (dated
April 14, 2020 and included as Appendix C-4) that are applicable
to the proposed project.
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified biologist
Prior to the start of project construction
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department and qualified biologist
MM-BIO-8: Land Use Near Streams
The proposed project shall be conducted in accordance with the
Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s
Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams, as
applicable. This includes, but is not limited to, the policies outlined
in Chapter 3 Proposed Guidelines and Standards, Chapter 4
Design Guides, Chapter 4 Bank Protection/Erosion Repair
Guides, and Chapter 6 Guidance for Developers.
Project applicant and contractor Prior to the start of project construction
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development and Santa Clara Valley Water District
Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1 : Archaeological Resources
In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or
artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the
proposed project, all earth-disturbing work occurring in the vicinity
(generally within 100 feet of the find) shall immediately stop, and
a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall be notified
regarding the discovery. The archaeologist shall evaluate the
significance of the find and determine whether additional study is
warranted. If the discovery proves significant under the California
Environmental Quality Act (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; California Public
Resources Code, Section 21082) or Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 60.4), additional work such as
preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data
recovery may be warranted.
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified professional archaeologist
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 6
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule/Timing Monitoring/Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed
MM-CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and
Safety Code, if potential human remains are found, earth-
disturbing work in the vicinity of the find (generally 100 feet is
sufficient) should immediately halt, and the county coroner shall
be notified of the discovery. The coroner will provide a
determination within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation
or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably
suspected to overlie additional remains, shall occur until a
determination has been made. If the county coroner determines
that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, they
shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources
Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify the
person(s) believed to be the most likely descendant (MLDs) from
the deceased Native American. The MLDs may, with the
permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized
representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native
American human remains and recommend to the owner or the
person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment
or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and
any associated grave goods. The MLDs shall complete their
inspection and make recommendations or preferences for
treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.
Project applicant, contractor, coroner, and City of Saratoga
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga - Community Development Department, contractor, and coroner
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 7
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule/Timing Monitoring/Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed
Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Monitor
Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the
applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) guidelines. The qualified
paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a
paleontological monitor shall be on site during all rough grading
and other significant ground-disturbing activities in previously
undisturbed, fine-grained Pliocene and Pleistocene alluvial
deposits. These deposits may be encountered at depths as
shallow as 5–10 feet below ground surface. In the event that
paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during
grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or
divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological
resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot-
radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is
completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to
recommence in the area of the find. Documentation of the
appropriate salvage and recovery of fossil specimens and their
transfer to an appropriate repository (e.g., University of California
at Berkeley Museum of Paleontology) shall be submitted to the City
of Saratoga as evidence of compliance with this mitigation
measure.
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified professional paleontologist
Prior to the start of grading activities during project construction
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department, applicant
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources
If potential archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, or
human remains are discovered during project activities, then work
shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find. If the unanticipated
resource is archaeological in nature, appropriate management
requirements shall be implemented as outlined in MM-CUL-1 (see
Section 3.4, Cultural Resources) in conjunction with the following
provisions specific to the management of TCRs. A qualified
cultural resources specialist shall be contacted to inspect the find,
and to assess if the resource is of Native American origin or
otherwise has potential to be considered a tribal cultural resource.
If the resource is a potential tribal cultural resource, the lead
Project applicant, contractor, and qualified professional archaeologist
During project construction as necessary
City of Saratoga – Community Development Department
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 8
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Mitigation Schedule/Timing Monitoring/Report Responsibility Status/Date Completed
agency shall be immediately contacted. Depending on the nature
of the find, if the lead agency determines, pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21074 (a)(2), that the find appears to be
a tribal cultural resource in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, the NAHC-listed tribes shall be contacted
and provided a reasonable period of time to make
recommendations. These representatives shall be provided the
opportunity to inspect the find on site. The lead agency shall
review recommendations, enlisting the aid of a qualified
archaeologist or other specialists if needed, and move forward
with management options determined to be reasonable and
feasible. The project may recommence ground disturbance
activities in the vicinity of the find after it has complied with agency-
approved recommendations. If human remains are found, then
the procedures outlined in MM-CUL-2 (see Section 3.4) shall be
implemented.
Palm Villas Saratoga Project 10738
August 2020 9
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK